TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Quick Resolution of Revision Petition; Temple Executive Officer's Termination and Appointment in Limbo.</h1> <h3>K.T. RAVEENDRANATH, TRUSTEE Versus THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR, STATE OF KERALA</h3> The HC disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to expedite the disposal of the pending revision petition within six weeks. The ... - Issues involved: Challenge to termination of services of Executive Officer of a temple, delay in disposal of revision petition, non-approval of appointment of new Executive Officer.Challenge to termination of services of Executive Officer: The petitioner, a trustee of a temple, challenged the directive to terminate the services of the Executive Officer appointed by filing a revision petition before the Government. The High Court had earlier directed the 1st respondent to consider a stay petition and dispose of the revision petition within a specified time frame. The petitioner sought approval for the appointment of a new Executive Officer, which was rejected by the Commissioner due to the pending revision petition.Delay in disposal of revision petition: The Government Pleader informed that the stay petition had been dismissed, and the revision petition had not been disposed of yet. The time limit set by the High Court for disposing of the revision petition had already lapsed, and the petitioner had not received the order passed on the stay petition.Non-approval of appointment of new Executive Officer: The petitioner requested approval for the appointment of a new Executive Officer, but the Commissioner rejected the request citing the pending revision petition. The High Court directed the 1st respondent to ensure that the revision petition mentioned in the previous judgment is disposed of within six weeks from the date of receipt of the current judgment.Judgment: The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to expedite the disposal of the revision petition within the specified time frame.
TaxTMI 
