IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24394 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. SREEKRISHNASWAMY DEVASWOM, MATTANCHERRY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE- DIVAKAR D.DEO, 5/977, PANDIT ROAD, GOPALAKRISHNA AVENUE, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-2. 2. DILIP K.PARANJPE, S/O.KRISHNAJI PARANJPE, 5/971, G K AVENUE, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-2. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND, TRICHUR. 2. ENQUIRY OFFICER AND BHANDARAM SPECIAL OFFICER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, TRICHUR. 3. S.K.PANDIT, PLOT NO.435/2/2A, SAI RESIDENCY, RAMNATH PANDIT RESEARCH CENTRE COMPLEX, VISHNUPURI P.O., TALEGAON (DABHADE), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA - 410 507. 4. PRAMOD S.GORE, 5/905, GORE CHAMBERS, G.K.AVENUE, COCHIN-2. 5. K.P.MOHANDAS, SIVAKRIPA, EROORSOUTH PO, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 306. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 24394 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, This writ petition is filed seeking to challenge Ext.P17. Earlier the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4205 of 2009, which has been disposed of by Ext.P16 judgment. During the pendency of that writ petition there was a stay against the appointment of interim trustee. However the writ petition was dismissed since consensus could not be reached between the hereditary trustees in the matter of implementation of the suggestions made by the Ombudsman. We left open the questions to be decided by the civil court. Since the writ petition was dismissed, simultaneously the interlocutory application was also dismissed. The interim order was not allowed to continue till a fresh order is passed by the civil court after hearing the parties. Though the petitioner could have filed a review petition, he did not do so. As a result, Ext.P17 order was passed. Technically Ext.P17 cannot be said to be in violation of any order since the WPC.24394/2009. 2 interim order stood vacated while dismissing the writ petition. However, having due regard to the factual situation, and also the report of the Ombudsman and our own observations contained in the judgment, what was intended was only to relegate the parties to the civil court for proper decision as the matter requires to be considered in the light of the evidence that may be adduced, both oral and documentary. In the circumstances, the only relief that can be granted in the present writ petition is to continue the status quo prior to Ext.P17 for a period of one month within which time the petitioner may approach the civil court for interim order and the civil court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders untramelled by the observations made herein above. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.