IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24394 of 2009(T)
1. SREEKRISHNASWAMY DEVASWOM, MATTANCHERRY
... Petitioner
2. DILIP K.PARANJPE,
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. ENQUIRY OFFICER AND BHANDARAM SPECIAL
3. S.K.PANDIT, PLOT NO.435/2/2A,
4. PRAMOD S.GORE, 5/905, GORE CHAMBERS,
5. K.P.MOHANDAS, SIVAKRIPA, EROORSOUTH PO,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :25/08/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 24394 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Raman, J,
This writ petition is filed seeking to challenge Ext.P17.
Earlier the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.
4205 of 2009, which has been disposed of by Ext.P16 judgment.
During the pendency of that writ petition there was a stay against
the appointment of interim trustee. However the writ petition was
dismissed since consensus could not be reached between the
hereditary trustees in the matter of implementation of the
suggestions made by the Ombudsman. We left open the questions
to be decided by the civil court. Since the writ petition was
dismissed, simultaneously the interlocutory application was also
dismissed. The interim order was not allowed to continue till a
fresh order is passed by the civil court after hearing the parties.
Though the petitioner could have filed a review petition, he did not
do so. As a result, Ext.P17 order was passed. Technically
Ext.P17 cannot be said to be in violation of any order since the
WPC.24394/2009. 2
interim order stood vacated while dismissing the writ petition.
However, having due regard to the factual situation, and also the report
of the Ombudsman and our own observations contained in the
judgment, what was intended was only to relegate the parties to the
civil court for proper decision as the matter requires to be considered in
the light of the evidence that may be adduced, both oral and
documentary. In the circumstances, the only relief that can be granted
in the present writ petition is to continue the status quo prior to Ext.P17
for a period of one month within which time the petitioner may
approach the civil court for interim order and the civil court will
consider the same and pass appropriate orders untramelled by the
observations made herein above.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
P.R. Raman,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.