IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 5779 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. E.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.K.EASWARA PILLAI, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (UNDER SUSPENSION)THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION RESIDING AT KOYHIKKAL GOPALAYAM, TC 23/1351 (2) MELARANNUR, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. G. GIRI SANKAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.GOVINDAN NAIR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (UNDER SUSPENCION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESIDING AT `SREERAG', RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. T.K.JOSE, ENQUIRY OFFICER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROAD AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI.N.NANDAKUMARAMENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).5779/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P5 and P7. Facts of the case are that the petitioners were Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer working in the 2nd respondent, Corporation. By Ext.P5, following an incident where a building collapsed, petitioners were placed under suspension and by Ext.P7 proceedings, the charge of the petitioners held by them has been handed over to certain other officers. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing from the 1st respondent. 3. Having regard to the fact that a statutory remedy of review is available to the petitioners, I do not think it is necessary to entertain this writ petition exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Although the statute W.P.(C).5779/10 2 prescribe the period of 30 days for filing the review under Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, having regard to the fact that the writ petition was pending before this Court since 22.2.2010, I think it is only appropriate that the petitioners shall be permitted to file a review before the 1st respondent. 4. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioners file a review under Rule 35 of the Rules before the 1st respondent within one week from today, the same shall be considered and orders be passed, with notice to the petitioners and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. 5. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs