IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 585 of 2010(A) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19958/2003 Dated 20/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ----------------------------------------------- GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADEKKAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & R2 IN WPC ------------------------------------- 1. E.K.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.KAVI, EDAPPILLI HOUSE, POOTHOL, FORMERLY DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ASSIGNMENT, THRISSSUR. 2. THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS - SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- R.P.NO.585 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.19958 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011. O R D E R It is evident that, by virtue of the directions contained in the judgment dt.20.8.2009 what was intended is only a re-consideration of the review petition, which was already disposed of by the Government under Ext.P4. Through the judgment this Court had quashed Ext.P4. But it seems that by way of a mistake, the direction was issued to the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 revision petition. In fact Ext.P3 was only the order issued by the Government and not the revision petition. 2. Under the above circumstances, the judgment dt.20.8.2009 is clarified to the extent of directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the review petition which was disposed of through Ext.P4, and to take appropriate fresh decision thereof, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible. R.P.NO.585 of 2010 2 3. Considering the fact that the time stipulated in the judgment stands expired, time for disposal of the matter by the 1st respondent as directed above is extended for a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab