IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 27390 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.MADHAVAN NAMPOOTHIRY, S/O.M.NARAYANAN NAMPOOTHIRY, KUNNATH MADOM, KEZHPEROOR, PEROOR P.O., KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT CHENNATT HOUSE, NELLUVAI P.O., ERUMAPATTY, THRISSUR. (SANTHI, KEEZHEDOM AIVANI URAG TEMPLE) BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.ROOBESH EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD- REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVILWAMALA DEVASWOM, THRISSUR. 3. SRI.SANKARA NARAYANAN, JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER, MULLACKAL, NELLUVAI P.O., ERUMAPATTY, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27390 OF 2009 (P) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks implementation of Ext.P1, an order transferring him from Irani Urag Temple to Siva Temple, Ernakulam. His complaint is that despite the said order of transfer he is not relieved. 2. However, the statement filed on behalf of the respondents itself discloses that Ext.P1 order was passed without taking into account Annexure-R1. It is stated that when the authorities were alerted about Ext.R1, they have been issued proceedings dated 22.9.2009, canceling Ext.P1. Therefore, essentially what is sought for in this writ Petition is to direct implementation of the order which according to the respondent has been cancelled. Unless the petitioner succeeds in getting order of cancellation invalidated this court will not be justified in passing an order as sought for. 3. Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to purse his remedies against the aforesaid order of cancellation. WPC.No.27390/09 :2 : At this stage the counsel for the petitioner complains that proceedings dated 22.9.2009 canceling Ext.P1 has not been communicated to him. Taking into account this submission it is directed that the respondents shall, on the production of a copy of the judgment, communicate the proceedings referred to above to the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to seek his remedies against the said proceedings. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/