[2008] 14 S.C.R. 51
--\
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
A
v.
PROF. D. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5907 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.)
Precedent - Writ petition - Allowed by Single Judge as
well as Division Bench of High Court - State placing reliance c
on judgment of Supreme Court in an identical matter - Re-
mitted to Division Bench o High Court to decide the issue on
· the basis of the decided cases in identical matters.
State of Kera/a v. P V Neelakandan 2005 (5) SCC 561 -
relied on.
D
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5907
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2005 of the
High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1432 of 2005
E
WITH
C.A. No. 5908 of 2008
'-.;
T.L.V. Iyer, G. Prakash and Beena Prakash for the Appel-
F
Ian ts.
P.K. Manhohar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
G
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Divi-
sion Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appeal filed
by the State. Before the High Court it was contended that the
decision of the full Bench of the High Court in Accountant Gen-
51
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A
era/ v. Kunjamma [2003 (3) KLT 345] relied on by learned
I-·
B
c
Single Judge was in appeal before this Court and an order of
stay of the said Court had been passed. But, the High Court
was of the view that in view of the decision of the Full Bench the
writ appeal was without merit.
3. It is submitted that the High Court's judgment is dated
19.7.2005, while the identical issue came up for consideration
in State of Kera/a v. PV Neelakandan [2005(5) SCC 561],
which was decided on 11.7.2005.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view
expressed in C.A. No. 2907 of 2005 decided on 22.2.2007 has
also relevance.
5. We are of the view that the case at hand needs to be
decided in line with what has been stated in P V Neelakandan's
D case (supra) and in C.A. 2907 of 2005. We, therefore, remit the
matter to the High Court to hear the matter afresh and decide
the writ appeal in the light of what has been stated by this Court
in the aforesaid two decisions .
E
. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
K.K.T.
Appeals disposed of.
Lex