Review petition dismissed. Court held that the earlier judgment did not rule on merits of the claim or document Ext.P14; petitioners are free to assert rights via appropriate steps against the stated order.
Review petition disposed; petitioners free to pursue rights against the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI
FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930
RP.No. 913 of 2008(N)
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28909/2007
REVIEW PETITIONERS/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 & 5.
BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.GIRI J
-------------------------------------------RP.NO.913 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.28909/2007-(N)
-------------------------------------------Dated this 22nd day of August, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submits that the application for impleading the petitioners herein in the writ petition has not been considered by this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Although, in that judgment I have issued a direction to the Commissioner to take a decision, all that was directed was to consider the request contained in Ext.P14, after hearing the petitioner. I
had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition or the merits of the request contained in Ext.P14. If the petitioners in the Review Petition are aggrieved by the decision which is now stated to have been taken on Ext.P14, then they are obviously at liberty to take appropriate steps in relation to the said order which is now stated to have been passed.
RP/913/2008 2 Obviously, the judgment shall not stand in the way of any right being asserted by the petitioners if otherwise available to them. Subject to above, the review petition is disposed
of.
V.GIRI, JUDGE
bps
Peethambaran
APKVinodh
C. Kunhikannan Nambiar
R. Madhavan
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
V. Giri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
