IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 111 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP.858/2009 Dated 08/10/2010 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.38671/2002 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------- 1. G.RAJENDRAN, RAJI NIVAS, NANR COMPOUND, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. G.NAGENDRAN, RAJI NIVAS, NANR COMPOUND, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. G.RAJESSWARI, RAJI NIVAS, NANR COMPOUND, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN RESPONDENTS/REVIEW PETITIONER&RESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, P.B.NO.13, KOLLAM-691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, FOR R1 G.P. SRI.BENNY GERVACIS FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.111 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed by respondents in a Review Petition which is disposed of by learned Single Judge along with other Unnumbered Review Petitions and a Contempt case. After hearing counsel for the appellants, we notice that appellants' grievance is against the statutory provisions introduced subsequent to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the O.P. which is stated to be in favour of the appellants. When Contempt and Review Petitions were filed, learned Single Judge noticed that there cannot be any contempt or scope for review because the position declared through the judgment is altered through subsequent legislation. We do not think Writ Appeal is maintainable against the order in the R.P. because there is no adverse findings against the appellants. Counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants' grievance is against the legislation made superceding the benefit granted in the judgment. If appellants have to restore the 2 benefit of judgment superceded by legislation, it is up to them to challenge the statutory provisions, if there is any ground for the same and then ask for appropriate relief, whether it be for restoration or retention of the relief granted by the learned Single Judge prior to the legislation. Writ Appeal is closed leaving it open to the appellants to challenge the statutory provisions, if they are so advised. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms