IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 556 of 2009(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10141/2009 Dated 27/05/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO 4 ------------------------------------- ANANDA BAJI AGED 76,W/O.LATE BHARATHAN - VAIDHYAR, MADHAVA MANDIRAM, CHAVARCODE, PARIPPALLI P.O. NOW RESIDING AT DEVI KRIPA, KADAKKAVUR P.O. TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SASIDHARAN NAIR(CHERUNNIYOOR) SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. KILIMANOOR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BAND LIMITED, NO.T.326 KILIMANNOOR P.O. TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE STTE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GEVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE JINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL ) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. UPA LOKAYUKTA, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY COMPLEX, PMG, TRIVANDRUM. BY SC SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------------- R.P.No.556/09 in WP(c).No.10141/09 ----------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Review petitioner, the 4th respondent in the writ petition, points out that the appeal against Ext.P10 mentioned in page 8 of the judgment was filed by the writ petitioner, the first respondent herein, only on 4.4.2009, while Upa Lok Ayukta passed Ext.P18 order on 26.3.2009. On this basis it is pointed that the observation in page 8 of the judgment that once the appellate remedy against Ext.P10 has been availed of and the appeal was pending, the Upa Lok Ayuktha should not have passed Ext.P18 order and should have awaited the outcome of the appeal, is erroneous. 2. Heaving heard the counsel on both sides, I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by the review petitioner. However,the aforesaid observation do not have RP.No.556/09 2 any impact on the final direction issued in the judgment and therefore, is in fact, inconsequential. Therefore, review petition is disposed of deleting the sentence “once the appellate remedy against Ext.P10 has been availed of and the appeal is pending, in my view, the Upa Lok Ayuktha should have waited for the outcome of the appeal before passing an order in the nature of Ext.P18, which has, in effect, rendered the appeal infructuous and that ought not have been allowed to happen” occurring in page 8 of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ RP.No.556/09 3