IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAIHTA 1933 WA.No. 539 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.10856/2011 Dated 11/04/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 -------------------------------- 1. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,KOZHIKODE REP.BY THE COMMISSIONER,HIOUSEFED COMPLEX, POST ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,POST ERANHIPALAM KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,MALAPPURAM DIVISION,CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 -------------------------------------------- 1. P.SREEDHARAN,EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE VAIRAMKODE DEVASWOM.P.O,VAIRAMCODE-676301, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT(UNDER SUSPENSION). 2. THE INSPECTOR,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MANJERI DIVISION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RAVEENDRAN.V.K,'ARCHANA',THEKKENKUTTUR, VIA,KALPAKANCHERY-676551. 4. T.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,THIYYADATH HOUSE, KURUMBATHUR.P.O,THIRUNAVAYA VIA-676301. 5. MANIKANTAN,VARIPPADATH VEEDU,VAIRAMKODE. P.O,THIRUNAVAYA VIA-676301. 6. VAIRAMKODE BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, THIRUNAVAYA VIA-676301,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-REP. BY TRUSTEE K.P.APPUKUTTAN. BY ADV.SRI.N.REGHURAJ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 539 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No.10856 of 2011 are the appellants. They are aggrieved by an interim order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, staying the operation of Ext.P11 order placing the 1st respondent under suspension. 2. The pleadings in the writ petition itself show that the learned Judge is fully justified in his conclusion that it cannot be said with any certainty that the hereditary trustees had taken over charges as contended by the appellants. Therefore, we do not find any error in the conclusion of the learned Judge and hence we do not see any merit in the writ appeal and dismiss the same. However, taking note of the undertaking of the appellants that they will ensure that notice on other contesting respondents in the writ petition is served, we direct that if the WA No. 539 of 2011 -:2:- said undertaking is complied with, the Registry shall list the writ petition itself before appropriate Bench after two weeks, so that the parties can seek an early hearing of the writ petition. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. Antony Dominic, Judge. ttb