IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 595 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4881/2004 Dated 30/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- ----------------------------------------------- K.SREEDHARAN NMBOOTHIRI, MELSANTHI, PERALASSERRY SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, PERALASSERRY MUNDALLUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMTN, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, (ADMN.) CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,(ADMN), CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE MANGER, PERALASSERRY SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, PERALASSERRY, MUNDALLUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. K.E. PARAMESWARAN THANGAL, TRUSTEE, PERALASSERRY SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE PERALASSERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. KUNNATHU APPUKUTTAN PODUVAL,TRUSTEE, PERALASSERRY SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE PERALASSERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. -2- R.P.NO.595/2008 7. MANNATTU ILLATHU KRISHNN THANGAL, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, PERALSSERRY SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, PERALASSERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN,JJ. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.595 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C).No.4881 OF 2004 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August,2008 ORDER Raman,J. Heard. This is a petition seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(C). No.4881/2004. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record and no grounds are made out for review of the judgment. Hence, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. We do so. 2. In the course of the argument the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner, an apology was tendered before the Board of Trustees; but the Board of Trustees did not accept the apology and grant any relief. In the light of the order passed by the Commissioner, the petitioner made a representation Ext.P33 before the Government. We make it clear that the dismissal of the writ -2- R.P.No.595/2008 petition and the review petition will not stand in the way of the Government considering the said representation merits. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.