IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 771 of 2010(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21197/2010 Dated 12/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- C.K.VIKRAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI,S/O.KESAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 46 YEARS, PURAM SANTHI MAJOR SREE MAHA DEVA TEMPLE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM AND RESIDING AT CHENTITTA ILLAM,ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM REP.BY ITS SECRETARY - 695003. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VAIKKOM - 686143. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTAYAM - 686001. 5. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686001 6. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVARPPU, KOTTAYAM - 686001. 7. SHRI N.K.KESAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, MELSANTHI, THIRUNAKKARA, MAJOR SREE MAHA DEVA TEMPLE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686001. SRI.P.GOPAL, SC, TDB THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- R.P.No. NO.771 OF 2010 IN WP(c).No.21197 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. First grievance of the petitioner is that, in pursuance to the freedom given in paragraph 6 of the judgment, though he had filed a representation to the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, since no time limit has been fixed in the judgment for passing orders thereon, orders have not been passed on the said representation. According to the petitioner, Annexure-2 is the representation that has been filed and he has filed the same as early as on 20th of July 2010. 3. A reading of paragraph 6 of the judgment shows that, no time limit has been fixed in passing orders on the representation to be filed as directed therein. Since according to the petitioner in pursuance to the said direction he has already filed two representations and as orders thereon have not been passed, I RP.No.771/2010 :2 : direct that the 2nd respondent shall, within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this oder pass orders on Annexure-2 representation if the same has already been received. 4. The other grievance of the petitioner is that, though by order dated 25.6.2010, Ext.P4 appeal filed by him has been disposed, even as on date, copy of the order has not been communicated to him. A reading of the last sentence of the judgment shows that the 2nd respondent was directed to issue copy of the order to the petitioner on the production of a copy of the judgment. Contrary to the said direction, if a copy of the order dated 25.6.2010 disposing of Ext.P4 appeal has not so far been served on the petitioner, it may be a case for the petitioner to initiate action for disobedience of the direction, but however that does not justify a prayer for further directions in a review petition. Review petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/