IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 989 of 2010(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16822/2010 Dated 05/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.A. JOSE & COMPANY, AWD NO. 6, METHALA, KODUNGALLUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER E.O.LAWRENCE. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.K. MUKUNDAN, S/O. KUNJAN, PANIKKAVEETTIL, CHENTHRAPINNI, KADUNGALLUR-680018. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR- 680001. 5. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR-680001. 6. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR – 6800018. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. ADV. SRI. T. GOPALAKRISHNAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R,P. No. No. 989 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of November, 2010. O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioner who was not a party to the writ petition. He is seeking a review of my judgment dated 5.7.2010, which reads as follows and is self-explanatory: Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued inviting applications for a licence to run an authorized wholesale depot in Mathilakam Panchayat, the petitioner submitted an application. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that although the notification was issued as early as on 24.2.2006, the same has not culminated in an order of appointment. In respect thereof, there was some litigation. In view of the same, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether there is any stay of proceedings of Ext.P1 from any authority or court. On instructions, the Government Pleader today submits that there is no stay of Ext.P1 and, therefore, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 can be completed within three months. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to complete the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 as provided in the Kerala Rationing Order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The contention of the petitioner is that since Ext. P1 notification has been subsequently cancelled by the Government in a revision before the Government Ext. P1 notification is no longer in existence and no proceedings can be taken further pursuant to Ext. P1 notification. 2. While admitting that Ext. P1 notification has been cacelled in revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition submits that that order of the Government has been challenged by the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 34573/2010. I am of opinion that that does not change the situation insofar as this review petition is concerned. As on today, Ext. P1 notification in the writ petition stands cancelled and therefore no further proceedings can be taken pursuant thereto as directed in the judgment. Therefore, the R.P.989/10 -: 2 :- judgment dated 5.7.2010 in W.P(C) No. 16822/2010 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file. The same shall be posted for further proceedings along W.P(C) No. 34573/2010 before the appropriate court. The review petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.