IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29980 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KANATHIL KANNAN, KATHIRUMMEL HOUSE, NARATH AMSOM DESOM, NARATH PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA, SRI.GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, PIN-670 101. 2. SMT.SEENATH, D/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, NARATH AMSOM DESOM, NARATH PO, KANNUR, PIN-670 603. 3. SMT.RAULATH, D/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, NARATH AMSOM DESOM, NARATH PO, KANNUR, PIN-670 603. 4. POLUPLAYIL FAISAL, S/O.RAULATH, NARATH AMSOM DESOM, NARATH PO, KANNUR, PIN-670 603. 5. MOOSAKUTTY, RAULATH MANZIL , KUDICHAL, KANNADIPARAMBA PO, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 603. 6. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R1 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29980 of 2010 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Grievance of the petitioner is that against Ext.P4 order dated 11/08/2009 passed by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the 5th respondent has filed a revision before the 6th respondent. It is stated that though in Ext.P5 judgment dated 11/11/2009 in WP(C) No.28536/2009 while staying implementation of Ext.P4 order this Court directed the disposal of the revision, the revisional authority has not disposed of the matter till date. It is in these circumstances, complaining of inordinate delay in the disposal of the revision and seeking a direction for its expeditious disposal, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, Ext.P5 judgment was rendered by this Court on 11/11/2009 directing expeditious disposal of the revision. From Ext.P6, the information obtained by the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to WP(C) No.29980/2010 -2- Information Act, it appears that the revision is still pending. Thus, inordinate delay has already been caused in the disposal of the revision. This apparently is for the reason that no time frame has been fixed in Ext.P5 judgment. In my view, when this Court has directed expeditious disposal of the revision, the respondent should not have been shown this much of laxity in compliance with the directions. Now that in any case since the revision is pending, I direct the 6th respondent to dispose of the revision as directed in Ext.P5 judgment, with notice to all parties. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 6th respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg