IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4010 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- ADVOCATE.K.T.RAVEENDRANATH, TRUSTEE, SREE MAMANIKUNNU MAHADEVI TEMPLE,MAMANAM.P.O, IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEVASWOM (REVENUE),SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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