IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 569 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33375/2009 Dated 03/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC: --------------------------------------------------------------------- DR.P.N.PREMACHANDRAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SMALL FARMERS AGREE BUSINESS CONSORTIUM (S F A C), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1, RESIDING AT `PRANAVAM', TC 15/285(2), ANRA 38, ALTHARA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM-10. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN WPC ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.569 OF2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 33375 OF 2009 (N) ===================== Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 3/6/2010. Prior to the disposal of the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner had filed memo dated 25th of May 2010, reporting that in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court, petitioner was included in the zone of consideration and was considered. It is also stated that against rejection of his candidature, he had filed OA 184/10 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam and that now the matter was pending consideration of this Court. Therefore, petitioner prayed that in the light of the subsequent developments, the writ petition may be closed making the interim orders dated 30/11/2009 and 22/12/2009 absolute. 2. However, by judgment dated 3/6/2010, the writ petition was closed, without pronouncing anything on the interim orders as sought for in the memo filed by the counsel. Thereupon, this review petition was filed stating that the omission RP No.569/2010 in WP(C) No.33375/09 :2 : of this Court to consider the prayer to make the interim orders absolute was an error and that the judgment should be reviewed on that basis. 3. I heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on whose behalf, a counter affidavit also has been filed. 4. Evidently, the writ petition was disposed of considering the memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner and the contentions on the merits were not gone into. In the circumstances, the omission of this Court to deal with the prayer of the petitioner to make the interim orders absolute was an error. Therefore, I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated by an error and needs to be reviewed. Accordingly, the Review Petition will stand allowed and the judgment dated 3rd of June, 2010 will stand recalled. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp