IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 641 of 2010(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21628/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- ADVOCATE M.L.GEORGE, AVE MARIA, ACHAN VEETTIL ROAD, PACHALAM PO, KOCHI-12. BY ADV. M.L.GEORGE (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31. 2. REGISTRAR(JUDICIAL),HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31. 3. REGISTRAR(SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31. 4. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING,ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31. 5. THE CHAIRMAN BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, HIGH COURT CAMPUS,ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31. 6. THE PRESIDENT, HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, HIGH COURT BUILDING,ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31. BY G.P. SRI. HOOD. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010 ALONG WITH WPC 21628 OF 2010 THIS COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No. 641 of 2010 in WPC 21628/10 & W.P.C. No. 21628/2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Review petition is not numbered for the reason that judgment in WPC against which this Review Petition is filed was also not numbered. Reason for not numbering WPC is that matter is covered by an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in WPC 29646 of 2009 filed by the very same petitioner for the very same relief. However, today when the matter is taken up the petitioner who appeared in person submitted that he has not raised any question in the earlier round of WPC pertaining to decision stated to have been taken by the Full Court of the High Court and communicated to the public through press releases issued by the Registry. Even though this Court in the above case considered the petitioner's prayer for direction for amendment of the provisions of various Acts and Rules for reducing vacation and for holding Court sittings on Saturdays, we find from the 2 earlier judgment that nothing was raised or decided with reference to decision stated to have been taken by the Full Court of the High Court and the press releases issued by the Registry pertaining to holding of sitting on Saturdays. We therefore feel at least these matters could be agitated in another round and we therefore permitted the petitioner to argue the matter limiting the prayer only with reference to enforcement of the so-called decision of High Court published through press releases. We have also heard Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner's case is that the decision of the Full Court of the High Court pertaining to holding of sittings on all Saturdays, except second Saturdays, should be enforced because this serves public interest. In the first place what is clear from the press release is that there was no such Full Court decision to hold sitting on all Saturdays, other than second Saturdays. It is very clearly stated in the press release that some of the Judges are willing to consider holding of sitting on Saturdays, if advocates offer willingness to come and argue the case. Necessarily holding of sitting on Saturdays is possible only if both side lawyers appearing for the parties give a list to the Registry in 3 advance and with the concurrence of Judges, Registry can post the cases for hearing on Saturdays. Subsequent to the first press release, Registry has issued another press release making it clear that without consent and co-operation of the advocates on both sides, it would not be possible to proceed with proposal for holding sitting on Saturdays for those Judges willing to hold sitting on Saturdays. Shortly after publication of the press releases by the High Court, the Kerala High Court Advocates Association has on 13.11.2009 communicated their decision taken on 3.11.2009 to resist the holding of sitting by High Court on Saturdays. From the communication it is clear that advocates are unanimously opposed to holding of sitting on Saturdays. Obviously therefore the offer made by some of the Judges to hold sitting on Saturdays is not accepted by the advocates without whose co-operation High Court cannot hold sittings on Saturdays. Incidentally we are constrained to observe that most of the High Court judges write judgments in the week ends and only a few may be able to hold sitting on Saturdays when they are free. Probably advocates also devote time on Saturdays to hold conference with clients for preparation of the 4 case. Therefore, in our view, to assume that Saturday is a holiday for Judges and advocates is a misconception. However, we are sure that Judges who have free time on any Saturday may be willing to hold sitting, provided advocates on both sides offer to argue the case on any Saturday. Review Petition is allowed by holding that WPC is maintainable to the extent above stated. W.P.C. is disposed of with the above observations. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk 5