IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34568 of 2010(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- DR.NOBEL MATHEW, CHIEF PHYSICIAN, DEEPA AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, AND HOLISTIC RESEARCH CENTRE, SBI BUILDING, KUNNUMMAL, KANHANGAD-671 315. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THULASI BAI TEACHER, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.C.MUKUNDAN, ASWATHI, KOTHAKKAL P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 357. 2. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695 014. 3. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARGOD REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. PIN- 671 121. R2 & R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.34568 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the respondent in CC No.106/2009 on the file of the third respondent. He raised the issue of maintainability which was decided against him by Ext.P3 order. Against that order, he filed a revision before the State Commission, the second respondent. That was rejected by Ext.P4 order. 2. The writ petitioner challenges the aforesaid orders. The only grievance that is now raised before this Court is that certain observations have been made in Exts.P3 and P4 by respondents 2 and 3 which touch upon the merits of the petitioner's case and that these observations will prejudice the petitioner. 3. Evidently, Exts.P3 and P4 are rendered on the issue of maintainability raised by the petitioner. Therefore, anything that is expressed on the merits of the controversy cannot have any consequence which the case is considered for disposal and the second respondent before which the matter is now pending has to take its W.P (C) No.34568 of 2010 2 decision untrammelled by the observations made in Exts.P3 and P4 on the merits of the dispute. Clarifying the position as above, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge