IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 981 of 2010(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24149/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 5TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ ANANDAN, CF 2999, CAMP FOLLOWER (DHOBY), KERALA ARMED POLICE, 5TH BATTALION, MANIAR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS AND PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO ITS GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. M.SHANMUGHAVEL, S/O. S.M.SWAMY, CK-153, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, KOTTAYAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH ADV.SHRI.ASHOK M CHERIAN, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 981/2010 in W.P.(C).No. 24149/2010 ================== Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 O R D E R The 5th respondent in the writ petition has filed this review petition seeking review of my order dated 15.10.2010, which reads as follows: “Heard on the question of interim orders. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and the learned Government Pleader, I pass the following interim order; The third respondent shall provisionally give category change to the petitioner as Camp Follower Dhobi and retain the petitioner at A.R.Camp, Kottayam, in the vacancy of Dhobi available. The fifth respondent shall be posted as Camp Follower Sweeper in the vacancy arising on the petitioner being given category change as Dhobi at AR Camp, Kottayam, for which for the present the 5th respondent agrees. The above arrangement shall be purely provisional and subject to final orders in the writ petition.” The contention is that in the order there is a specific finding that the 5th respondent had agreed to the said order, which is not correct. According to the review petitioner, he had no intention to agree to such a course of action. I am not inclined to go into the controversy as to whether there was an agreement by the counsel for the 5th respondent or not. Now that the 5th respondent submits that he had no intention to agree to the same, I am inclined to recall the order dated 15.10.2010. Accordingly, the order dated 15.10.2010 is recalled. Consequently, the earlier interim order passed on 2.8.2010 and extended from time to time would continue to be in force until disposal of the writ petition. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2