High Court Kerala High Court

Advocate.K.T.Raveendranath vs The Commissioner on 2 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Advocate.K.T.Raveendranath vs The Commissioner on 2 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4010 of 2009(B)


1. ADVOCATE.K.T.RAVEENDRANATH, TRUSTEE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,MALABAR

3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :02/03/2009

 O R D E R
                T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
                      -------------------------
                  W.P ( C) No.4010 of 2009
                     --------------------------
               Dated this the 2nd March,2009

                       J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a trustee of Sree Mamanikunnu

Mahadevi Temple, Irikkur in Kannur District. One

Mr.P.K.Surendran was appointed as Executive Officer of

the Temple. The Commissioner, HR & CE, Calicut by

order dated 15.7.2008 directed the trustee to terminate

the services of the Executive Officer thus appointed. The

petitioner has challenged the same in revision petition

before the Government. Earlier, he had approached this

Court by filing WPC No.28203 of 2008 which was

disposed of by Exhibit-P1 judgment wherein this Court

directed the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit-P2(a) stay

petition therein and pass orders thereon within a period

of ten days from the date on which the petitioner

produces a copy of the judgment. Revision Petition was

directed to be disposed of within six weeks from the

date of judgment. Presently, the petitioner seeks for a

direction to approve the appointment of Sri.P.

Muraleedharan to the post of Executive Officer, since the

W.P ( C) No.4010 of 2009
2

non-approval has resulted in affecting the affairs of the

Devaswom. He was appointed as directed by the

Commissioner. But the request was rejected by the

Commissioner as the revision petition is still pending.

2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions,

submits that already the stay petition stands dismissed. It

is also informed that the revision petition has not been

disposed of so far.

3. Already the time limit fixed by this Court as per

Exhibit-P1 judgment to dispose of the revision petition is

over. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

order passed on the stay petition has also not been served

on the petitioner so far.

Therefore, the 1st respondent will see that the revision

petition filed as per Exhibit-P2 mentioned in Exhibit-P1

judgment will be disposed of within a period of six weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No.4010 of 2009
3

W.P ( C) No.4010 of 2009
4