IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 654 of 2011(C) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8426/2011 Dated 07/06/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL & REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, (NOW RENAMED AS KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING), VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL & REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, (NOW RENAMED AS KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING & TRAINING), VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MATHEW T.V., S/O. VARKEY, AGED 48 YRS, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, POOVATHODU P.O., BHARANANGAANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. S.P. CHALY R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs RP. NO.654/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(Rt)NO.990/2011/H.EDN. DATED 05/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 654 of 2011 & W.P(C) No. 8426 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The review petition is filed by the respondents in the writ petition seeking review of my order dated 7.6.2011. By that order, I directed implementation of Ext.P1 order passed by the Government. The contention raised by the respondents is that subsequent to passing of the order, the Government themselves modified Ext.P1 order and therefore the order may be reviewed permitting the respondents to implement the modified order. 2. When the review petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition itself may be permitted to be withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the modified order now stated to have been passed. 3. After hearing both sides, I dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the modified order of the Government appropriately. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, no separate orders are necessary in the review petition since the order dated 7.6.2011 does not have any relevance now and accordingly the review petition is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/