IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 179 of 2008(G)
1. R. VIJAYAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI,
... Respondent
2. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
4. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
5. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER,
6. V. MADHU, S/O. VASUDEVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :03/01/2011
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.M.Appln.No.81 OF 2008 IN
R.P.No.179 OF 2008 &
R.P.No.179 OF 2008 IN
W.P.(C)No.2588 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011
ORDER
Basheer, J.
The grievance of the review petitioner is that he could not get an
opportunity to be heard when the writ petition was decided by the
Division Bench.
2. The writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 in this
review petition alleging that the Advisory Committee had been
constituted in violation of the various Clauses contained in Ext.P3
Bye-laws. Admittedly, writ petition was disposed of by the Division
Bench as early as on October 3, 2007 with a direction to the
Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board to examine whether there
was any irregularity in the selection made to the Advisory Committee.
The Commissioner was directed to take a decision within one month
from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
3. It is seen from the judgment itself that the tenure of the
R.P.No.179/2008 2
Committee was due to expire in January 2008 itself. This review
petition was filed in November 2007 with a petition to condone the
delay of 16 days. It has been brought up for consideration only now.
In any view of the matter, we do not find any justification in
entertaining this review petition. Therefore, the delay petition and the
review petition are dismissed inlimine.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv.
R.P.No.179/2008 2