IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 424 of 2008(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31664/2005 Dated 12/12/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SURENDRAN T., THARAYIL HOUSE, MUTHUR P.O.TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT IN WP -------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.GOLDEN CHITS & FINANCE COMPANY GOLDEN PLAZA BUILDING, EZHUR ROAD, TIRUR MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER 2. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFIE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN ERANHIPALAM POST, KOZHIKODE. BY VIJAYA MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... R.P.NO. 424 OF 2008 IN WP(C) 31664 OF 2005 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 ORDER This review petition is filed by one Surendran.T, stating that WP(C)31664 of 2005, which is shown to have been filed by him, was in fact not filed by him but was signed by somebody else. In the review petition, he attempts to project a case that he is not even a partner of a firm. The bunch of materials prompted me to request the Honourable the Chief Justice to order an enquiry. Accordingly file was requested to be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice for considering appropriate enquiry being conducted in the issue through appropriate officer. Following that order dated 11.4.2008, the Registrar Vigilance,of this court conducted an enquiry as directed by the Honourable Chief Justice. 2. Following enquiry, Registrar, Vigilance has placed a submission dated 26.11.2008 stating that the gist of the report is that there is reason to think that the disputed signatures in the writ petition, viz WP(C) 31664 of 2005, are that of the review petitioner himself. It was also recorded by the Registrar, RP 424 OF 2008 2 Vigilance that it was in the presence of Sri.Sethumadhavan, Company Secretary that the review petitioner himself signed the papers in WP(C) 31664 of 2005 in the office of Advocate, who appeared in the writ petition, for the writ petitioner. The manner in which the age, residential address and paternity of the writ petitioner is described, though stated as erroneous, was not settled by that enquiry. Obviously, that is not necessary in relation to this review petition. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid, it is improper to conclude merely on the basis of affidavits or aforesaid enquiry that the judgment in the writ petition is to be vacated. Therefore this review petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in relation to all other matters, except as to the institution of the writ petition from which this review petition arises. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk