IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35928 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.K.SAIDALAVI, MANAGER, AL-AZHAR HIGH SCHOOL, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.VARGHESE FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35928/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the withdrawal of temporary recognition to his school. Exts.P1 and P2 are the orders granting temporary recognition to the school for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. According to the Department, conditions of Ext.P1 and P2 were not satisfied and still Ext.P7 was issued, extending temporary recognition till 31.3.2007, in order to enable the students to appear in the examination. It is stated that in the meanwhile attempt was made by the petitioner for shifting the school and that was unsuccessful. 2. While so, the DEO issued Ext.P10 order proposing to withdraw the temporary recognition granted to the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P1, the petitioner did not file his 2 objection and finally the DEO passed Ext.P11 withdrawing the temporary recognition that was granted. 3. Beyond the permissible period of one month, petitioner applied for review of Ext.P11 and that was rejected by Ext.P13 order of the DEO, as belated. It is in this circumstances, the writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.p11 and P13. Admittedly, review sought for was beyond the period prescribed in the rules and there is no provision for condoning the delay also. Be that as it may, still the remedy of revision as provided in Rule 23-BB of Chapter V KER is available, it is for the petitioner to avail of that statutory remedy. Therefore, leaving open the contentions and the remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3