IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30354 of 2010(T) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. MANOJKUMAR P., S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 38 YEARS, VIJAYA GOVINDA TEXTILES, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SANTHOSH MARUTHIYODE, AGED 36 YEARS, SANTHOSH GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, OLAKKAL HOUSE, AZHIKODE, KANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.673 020. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-20. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-20. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, P.O.THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY-670101 5. PATTALATH ILLATH SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE MOLOLAM KSHETHRAM, PANTHALAYINI P.O.KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE.PIN. 673 305. 6. PUTHUMANA ILLATH SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, NEAR KANNAN HOSPITAL, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR 670011. 7. MOLOLATHILLATH UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, MOLOLAM, P.O.AZHEEKODE, KANNUR.670 009. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30354 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. By Ext.P3 dated 10.6.2010, the petitioners and two others were appointed as non-hereditary trustees. Shortly thereafter, the authority which issued Ext.P3 found that the said decision was in contradiction to Ext.P2 decision of the Commissioner, the superior authority. Accordingly, Ext.P4 was issued. Though that decision is criticized as one having been issued without giving the petitioners opportunity of hearing, the ultimate question would be whether Ext.P3 could have been issued in contradiction to Ext.P2. It would also be relevant that the petitioners have a contention that the decision of the Commissioner, as reflected in Ext.P2, is itself contradictory to the statutory provisions. Under such circumstances, no purpose will be served by the Assistant Commissioner hearing the matter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, we are of the view that WPC.30354/10 2 this is a fit case where the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner could be resorted to by the petitioners, if so advised. Hence, it is directed that if the petitioners invoke the revisional jurisdictional of the Commissioner against Ext.P4, that will be considered and orders passed without delay, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the revision as aforesaid. Any interim arrangement on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 will also be considered by the Commissioner since there appears to be disputes as to whether either among Exts.P3 and P4 had taken up yet. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.6/10.