IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7617 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SECRETARY, IVERKALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORANAD S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-1. 2. DEPTUY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KERALA PAYMENT OF SUBSISTANCE ALLOWANCE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM.-1. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-1. 4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, A.R.OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA-690 521. 5. MRS.SHYNI K.R., W/O.P.PRASAD, KUTTIYIL VEEDU, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KUNNATHOOR-691 507. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.7617 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Payment of Subsistence Act, 1972. By that order the 2nd respondent held that Ext.P4, the original order passed by his predecessor in office on 22.6.2009 directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.48,469/- to the 5th respondent herein, was held to be in order. Though the chronology of events have not been correctly set out in the writ petition, from the documents produced and marked as Exts.P3, P4 and P1 it appears that the 5th respondent was placed under suspension on 17.10.2006 and later dismissed from service on 12.10.2007 with effect from 17.10.2006. It appears the 5th respondent had filed an application before the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Payment of Subsistence Act, 1972 seeking payment of the sum of Rs.48,469/- as subsistence allowance during the said period. By Ext.P4 order passed on 22.6.2009 the said application was W.P(C) NO.7617/2011 -:2:- allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the sum of Rs.48,469/- as subsistence allowance to the 5th respondent. The petitioner did not challenge Ext.P4. Later in the year 2010 when revenue recovery proceedings were initiated to recover the said amount the petitioner filed W.P(C)No.9609 of 2010. When the said writ petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a petition seeking review of Ext.P1 order had been filed and that it is pending. In that view of the matter this Court disposed of W.P(C)No.9609 of 2010 by Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 13.7.2010 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the review petition within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent an opportunity of being heard. This Court also directed that till such time, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. Ext.P1 order was passed thereafter upholding the earlier order Ext.P4. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order and seeks the following reliefs:- 1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ direction or order by setting aside Ext.P1 order passed by the second respondent. W.P(C) NO.7617/2011 -:3:- 2. First respondent may be directed not to take steps for implementing the order consequent on Ext.P1 order. 3. The appointment of the 5th respondent made by her husband and consequent eligibility for getting subsistence allowance of the 5th respondent may be declared to be illegal. The petitioner has not been able to point out any provision in the Payment of Subsistence Act, 1972, which empowers the second respondent to review his own orders. In the absence of any provision in the Payment of Subsistence Act, 1972 empowering the second respondent to review his own orders I am of the opinion that the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner has also not challenged Ext.P4 order in time. There is no prayer in the writ petition to set aside Ext.P4. In such circumstances I find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.7617 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 11th March, 2011