IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 160 of 2009(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3563/2005 Dated 27/05/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------- SALIM N.PRABHAKAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, MULLAMANGALATH, KURIKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSHAKENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI - 110092, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. JOINT SECRETARY (AFFILIATION), CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSHAKENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI - 110092, 3. REGIONAL OFFICER, CBSE, CHENNAI. 4. CHOICE SCHOOL, NADAMA EAST, TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 5. CHOICE SCHOOL, NADAMA EAST, TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (SR) FOR R1 TO R3. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED FOR R4 & R5. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.160 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.3563 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is a petition seeking review of the judgment dated 27.5.2008 in W.P.(C) No.3563 of 2005. The review petitioner is the petitioner in writ petition also. His grievance in the writ petition was non-implementation of Ext.P1 order by the concerned school. In this regard, it was pointed out that Ext.P3 is the representation made to the CBSE, complaining of the non implementation and for passing necessary orders against the school in question. After hearing the parties, the writ petition was disposed of directing the CBSE to dispose of Ext.P3 representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 2. In the body of the judgment of the writ petition, it was stated that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 RP.No.160 of 2009 2 representation before the CBSE. Unfortunately, what was produced by the petitioner in Ext.P3 is a memorandum of appeal, prior to passing of Ext.P1 order. Therefore, the review petition is filed to replace Ext.P3 produced in the writ petition with the present Annexure-A1, a copy of the said representation. It is submitted that as per Annexure-A2 order, CBSE has reviewed the previous order, Ext.P1. 3. In such circumstances, I leave open the right of the petitioner to canvass the correctness of the order now passed in Annexure-A2 and in that regard, it will be open to the petitioner to raise the contention in the present review petition also, so that the appropriate court dealing with the writ petition could certainly take that what was required to be considered is the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 order in appeal. I am not examining the correctness or otherwise of the merit of the order passed in Annexure-A2. The right of the petitioner to challenge the said order and the right of the RP.No.160 of 2009 3 respondent to take whatever contentions available to them is left open. The review petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE nj.