IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 185 of 2011(E) ------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.A.NO.193/2011 DATED 09/02/2011] .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- DR.P.P.MOHAMED, B1 QUARTERS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM. RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-673 635. 2. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 099. R1 & R2 BY SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.P.RAY, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.No.185 of 2011 in W.A.No.193 of 2011 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. Review Petition is filed against the observations in the judgment that if reference is made by the Chancellor before deciding respondents' appeal, Tribunal should give a hearing to the parties. Petitioner's case is that no hearing is contemplated by the Tribunal and what is required is only the Tribunal's advice in the matter. 2. The University's counsel has sought time for filing counter affidavit in the review petition. We do not think there is any need to keep the review petition pending because even according to the review petitioner, disposal of the appeal by the Chancellor is urgently required. Further, we do not propose to consider the jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal in regard to the matter referred to it by the Chancellor. The Tribunal probably thought that in fairness a RP.185/2011 : 2 : hearing should be given to parties before giving any adverse opinion against either of the parties. However, it is open to the review petitioner to waive hearing before the Tribunal. Still, if the Tribunal feels that adverse opinion is going to be given against the University, necessarily, in fairness, a hearing should be given to the University before drawing such conclusions and the Tribunal is free to hear them. We direct the Tribunal to expedite sending the advice which should be done within a period of two months from today. Review Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (B.P.RAY, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge