IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 913 of 2008(N) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28909/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 & 5. --------------------------------------------------------------- 1.C.PEETHAMBARAN, S/O. P.V.RAYARAPPAN NAMBIAR, AGED 57 YEARS, RETIRED VILLAGE MAN, NADAL, P.O.EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. A.P.K.VINODH, S/O. DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, ALAKKAL PUTHIYA KADAMBERI, P.O.THIRUVATTUR, PACHENI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. ------------------------------------- 1. C.KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR, CHAIRMAN, OORPAZHASSIKAVU DEVAWOM, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 663. 2. R.MADHAVAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OORPAZHASSIKAVU DEVASWOM, P.O.EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670663. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SATION, CALICUT. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, THALASSERY. 5. SRI.ULIKKAL NARAYAN, INSPECTOR, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMN.) DEPARTMENT, THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI J -------------------------------------------- RP.NO.913 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.28909/2007-(N) -------------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submits that the application for impleading the petitioners herein in the writ petition has not been considered by this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Although, in that judgment I have issued a direction to the Commissioner to take a decision, all that was directed was to consider the request contained in Ext.P14, after hearing the petitioner. I had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition or the merits of the request contained in Ext.P14. If the petitioners in the Review Petition are aggrieved by the decision which is now stated to have been taken on Ext.P14, then they are obviously at liberty to take appropriate steps in relation to the said order which is now stated to have been passed. RP/913/2008 2 Obviously, the judgment shall not stand in the way of any right being asserted by the petitioners if otherwise available to them. Subject to above, the review petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, JUDGE bps