IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16497 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.V.CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.SETHUMADHAVA WARRIER, THRIKKAZHIKUNNATH WARIYAM, KAVUVATTOM, CHERPULASSERY P.O., PALAGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, CHERPULASSERY SREE AYYAPPANKAVU DEVASWAM, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONR, MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. M.K. MURALEEDHARAN, DEVI VILASAM, KAVUVATTAM, CHERPULASSERY. *ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED ADDL. R4: THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (DEVASWAM), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/07/2010 IN I.A.9735/2010. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SC, MALABAR DB. ADDL. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16497 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the validity of the appointment of the third respondent as Counter Clerk in Cherpulassery Sree Ayyappankavu Devaswom, the managing trustee of which is the first respondent. It is seen that the petitioner has filed a revision under Section 18 (1) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (Amendment) Act, 2008 which was rejected by Ext.P6 order of the second respondent. Against Ext.P6 order, according to the petitioner, he has filed Ext.P9 revision before the additional fourth respondent. Having regard to the pendency of the said revision petition, the counsel seeks a direction to the additional fourth respondent to expeditiously consider and dispose of Ext.P9 revision filed by him. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P9 revision has been filed and is pending, it is directed that the additional fourth respondent shall consider Ext.P9 revision with notice to the petitioner and respondents 1 and 3. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps WPC No. 2 WPC No. 3