IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1054 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3495/2009 Dated 12/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC. ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KASARAGOD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,HOSDURG. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD POST KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDERA,POST CHANDERA VIA, TRIKARIPUR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC. ---------------------- LAKSHMANAN,PRESIDENT, SREE POOMALA BHAGAVATHY KSHETRA COMMITTEE, PUTHIYADATHATTINU MEETHAI,KOYENGARA, TRIKARIPUR 671 310. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.P.No.1054 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.3495 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th December, 2009 O R D E R Raman, J. State, which is the first respondent in the writ petition, seeks to review our judgment, dated 12.2.2009. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exts.P4 and P8 orders. But this Court did not go into the merits of the contentions raised between the parties, rather directed the revisional authority to dispose of the revision, expeditiously, and in that view of the matter, interim direction not to demolish the stage was allowed to continue until such disposal. 2. In the review petition now filed, it is averred that no such revision was filed by the writ petitioner and hence the interim direction continues indefinitely, and further the RP.No.1054 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.3495 of 2009 2 direction to dispose of the revision petition could not be adhered to, since the very petition is not seen filed. 3. We have issued notice to the respondent, the writ petitioner, and he has filed a counter affidavit, producing a copy of the revision said to have been filed on 27.1.2009, as evidenced by Annexure-A. Ofcourse, Annexure-A is a representation made to the Revenue Minister and not to the revisional authority. However, it is pointed out that Ext.P11 is a revision made to the Principal Secretary, Government Secretariate, and not to the Principal Secretary (Revenue Department). Hence, we find that a proper petition to the Principal Secretary (Revenue Department) as such is not filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that Ext.P11 produced along with the writ petition be treated as a revision petition filed before the appropriate authority, and the said authority shall consider and dispose of the revision expeditiously. The direction made in our judgment, RP.No.1054 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.3495 of 2009 3 dated 12.2.2009, is modified to the above extent. The interim direction not to demolish the stage will continue till such disposal. The review petition is disposed of with the above directions. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE nj.