IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 990 of 2008(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15534/2008 .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- VEERANKUTTY HAJI,MANGALASSERY HOUSE EZHUVANTHALA DESOM, NELLAYA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST., (TRUSTEE AND TEASURER, AL-AMEEN EDUCATION TRUST, KARAKKAD). BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATTAMBI 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION(F) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 5. V.ABDULLAKUTTY HAJI, VARAMANGALATH HOUSE PATTAMBI,PALLIPRAM AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 6. C.K.ABDULLA , MANZOOR MANZIL, OLD COURT ROAD, PATTAMBI(SECRETARY, AL-AMEEN EDUCATION TRUST, KARAKKAD) R1 TO R3 BY G.P.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR. R5 BY ADV.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== R.P.No.990 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No.15534 of 2008-Y ================================== Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008. ORDER This review petition is by the writ petitioner. The fifth respondent appears through Adv.Sri.Sandeep Ankarath. 2. All that the writ petitioner points out in his review petition is that the direction contained in the second paragraph requiring the Government to consider the request of the fifth respondent for approval of transfer of management of the school with transfer of ownership in favour of Cheriavappu Haji Memorial Educational Trust could not have been issued because, that request of the fifth respondent was already considered and decided by the Government long before the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued on 8-7-2008. RP990/08 -:2:- Adv.Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner however states that the writ petitioner could have well withdrawn the writ petition rather than suffer an order in favour of the fifth respondent in the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent states that the issues do not really end there, though it is pointed out on behalf of the writ petitioner that even the decision of the Government in that regard has resulted in further judgments of this Court and still further, according to the writ petitioner, the fifth respondent has no more, any sustainable right to challenge the decision. 4. Clarifying that this judgment does not touch upon the merits of the matter or the merits of the rival parties to initiate litigations, it is ordered that the direction, referred to above from paragraph 2 of the judgment sought to be RP990/08 -:3:- reviewed was only one to operate prospectively and if, as a matter of fact, the request of the fifth respondent for approval of transfer of management of the school with transfer of ownership in favour of Cheriavappu Haji Memorial Educational Trust has been decided upon by the Government before the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued on 8-7- 2008, the said judgment does not require the Government to re-open its earlier decision. This review petition is ordered accordingly. It is further clarified that this judgment does not touch upon any other matter or any other proceedings before the Government. Issue certified copy today. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.