IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 632 of 2010(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15360/2010 Dated 07/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- PS AJITH PRASAD, SUPERINTENDENT, CORPORATION OF KOCHI,ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU FOR R1 SRI. S.RAMESH BABU, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- R.P. No. 632 of 2010 IN W.P.(C) No. 15360 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Referring to Annexure A and Annexure B produced in this review petition, petitioner seeks review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.15360 of 2010. By the judgment Ext.P9 order of suspension, which was challenged in the writ petition, was upheld by this Court. In Annexure B, the petitioner sought information from the first respondent as to who has directed to suspend him from service. It is seen from Annexure A that the answer given is that it was as per the direction of the Minister for Local Self Government Department. It is relying on this question and answer that the petitioner wants this Court to infer that it was at the dictate of the Minister that he was placed under suspension and not on the independent application of mind by the officer who has issued Ext.P9 placing him under suspension. 2. First of all,, the question contained in Annexure B and Annexure A are too laconic and are capable of being mislead. That apart, Ext.P9 itself makes reference to a complaint received by the RP No.632/2010 2 Minister concerned and that the proceedings culminating in Ext.P9 originated on that complaint. Therefore, even if further action was ordered by the Minister, I am not persuaded to think that the Minister concerned dictated his terms with the subordinates and that for that reason Ext.P9 is bad. The review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps RP No.632/2010 3 RP No.632/2010 4