IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 330 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6600/2010 DATED 16/03/2010. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------- M. ABBDUREHIMAN, S/O.KUTTIAMMU, MALIYATHARAKKAL HOUSE, KODIYATHOOR P.O., MUKKAM, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. K.P. MUHAMMED, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNJU, DHANIYA, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, CHEVAYOOR P.O., CALICUT-17. 2. N.T. MOHAMMEDALI, DAYA MANZIL, KACHERIPADI, VENGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 304. 3. SHRI.P. AHAMMED KOYA, S/O.ABDU RAHIMANKUTTY, 17/1057, AMMAN, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, PUTHIYARA P.O., CALICUT-04. 4. DR.C.P. ABOOBACKER, S/O.AYAMMED KUTTY, SHAMSUL KHAIR, POONGOTTUKULAM, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. K.M. FARIYA, D/O.ALIKOYA, `PUTHENVEEDU', CHALIYAM P.O., CALICUT-673 301. 6. V. THAHIRA, D/O.V.S.S.A. THANGAL, VARAYALIL HOUSE, AYANCHERI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. RP.No. 330 of 2010 7. V.K. BHAVA, S/O.ABDULLA KOYA HAJI, KULANGARA HOUSE, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. 8. K. ZEENATH, D/O.K.P.ABDUL KHADER, 22/1202, THIRUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE. 9. K.K. MOHAMMED ZAHIR, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, 22/382, WOOD ROSE, THIRUVANNOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 029. 10. PARAYARUKANDY SAIDUTTY, S/O.MOIDEEN, KOUSER MANZIL, PUVATTUPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 029. 11. ABDUL SALEEM.C.C., S/O.KOYAN KUTTY.S, BUNGALOW, P.O.CHALIYAM, KOZHIKODE-673 201. 12. ABDUSHUKKUR THALATHIL, S/O.T. HUSSAIN, THALATHIL, MANJILATH, KODIYATHOOR P.O., MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.S. SREEKUMAR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, ALONG WITH RP NO.331 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------------------- RP Nos.330 & 331 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 31st March 2010 Order These Review Petitions are directed against the order dated 16.3.2010 in WP(C) Nos.6600 & 6562/10. The petitioners pointed out that certain errors have crept in, in the order passed by this Court, while disposing of the Writ Petitions. Attention of this Court was drawn to Paragraph Nos.14 and 17 of the Judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : “By virtue of the order of the appellate court, the Executive Committee, which now continues in office, cannot be said to have been validly elected, since the trial court has held that the said election is invalid in law. So their continuance in office is not justified. There seems to be some substance in the grievance voiced by the petitioners in these writ petitions that the result of the orders passed by the appellate court is that the committee, which was not validly elected will continue in office and election will not be held in the near future.” 2. The objection taken is that the observation made by this Court that the Executive Committee elected RP NOS.330 & 331/10 2 in 2005 which is allowed to continue in office, is invalid and is contrary to the actual state of affairs and may not be quite correct. The elected body of 2005 was a validly elected committee and it could not be considered as invalid, as observed in the Judgment, it is submitted. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that after the lower Court had found that the two elections held in 2008 were invalid, the earlier committee which was elected in 2005 was asked to continue. That committee could not be said to be a validly elected one, because the term of the committee had run out and it was in that context that it was observed that the committee continuing in office was an invalid one. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no error in the observations made by this Court in paragraphs 14 and 17. 4. There seems to be considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The sentence will have to be read in the RP NOS.330 & 331/10 3 context in which it is placed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Trial Court has held that the election held in 2008 by the two factions are invalid. One must remember that by the time of conducting the election in 2008, the term of the committee elected in 2005 had run out and they were asked to continue on an ad hoc basis. It could not be said that there is a validly elected committee after the expiry of the term. Therefore, it was said that the committee now in office cannot be said to be a validly elected one. There is no error in the observations made by this Court in the above quoted paragraphs. 5. It was then contended that it may be considered whether the committee, which was elected in 2005 and which was continuing in office should be appointed as the Receiver for the administration and management of the Association, instead of appointing a stranger. RP NOS.330 & 331/10 4 6. Normally, this Court would have accepted the proposal. But, it is seen that there is no consensus of opinion between the various factions and in fact, they stalemate in the administration and management of the Association. It was in that context that this Court was constrained to appoint an Advocate Receiver. No grounds are made out to review the appointment of the Receiver made by this Court. 7. It was then contended that the control of the Receiver may be given to the District Court, instead of the Munsiff's Court since all the records are before the District Court. There is no merit in the above contention also. The Trial Court has not disposed of the matter and has kept the suit pending, giving certain directions. In that context, it is only appropriate that the said Court itself supervises the functioning of the Receiver. It may not be appropriate to confer control on the District Court. RP NOS.330 & 331/10 5 8. The result is that these revisions are without merits and they are liable to be dismissed. I do so. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RP NOS.330 & 331/10 6