Parties must actively engage in legal proceedings, and failure to do so may lead to dismissal of petitions for non-prosecution.

ORDER

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

This review petition has been filed in respect of the verdict passed by the Bench of this Court on 28.05.2013 in the Original Petition No.1439/2013 (arising from the verdict passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.A. 422/2012), which was dismissed based on the submission made across the Bar that the petitioner might be permitted to withdraw the Original Petition in the light of the judgment of this Court in O.P. (KAT) No.1537/2013. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, that a Review Petition is being filed against the said verdict was also noted therein.

2. The grievance of the review petitioner is that, by virtue of the verdict already passed, the scope of the verdict passed by the Tribunal was clarified by this Court. The apprehension expressed from the part of the petitioner R.P. No. 761 of 2013 2 therein was that there would be a chance for reporting more vacancies than the sanctioned quota for Direct Recruitment. According to the petitioner, the total number of sanctioned posts was '220' and if the verdict passed by the Tribunal was to be given effect to, it would exceed the sanctioned strength and hence the challenge. The position was clarified as to the scope of the verdict passed by the Tribunal, observing that there was absolutely no reason for having any such apprehension, as to the verdict dated 11.04.2013 in O.P.(KAT) No.1537/2013. When O.P. (KAT) No.1439/2013 came up for consideration, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that relief was obtained, by virtue of the verdict passed in the other case and hence he wanted to withdraw the matter, which was permitted and the O.P. was dismissed as withdrawn.

3. The present Review Petition has been filed with a petition to condone the delay, pointing out that in the course of further proceedings, the verdict passed by the Bench on 11.04.2013 in O.P. (KAT) No.1537/2013 came to be varied/recalled based on the order passed in a review petition filed therein. The contention raised by the review R.P. No. 761 of 2013 3 petitioners therein was that the clarification/modification was made as to the scope of the verdict passed by the Tribunal, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the review petitioners and hence the matter was reconsidered. It was accordingly, that the said verdict was recalled and the Original Petition was ordered to be reposted for hearing. This made the review petitioner herein as well, to approach this Court, to have a similar exercise.

4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, notice was ordered in the C.M. Application to condone delay, to be served by speed post to the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to 30 on 15.11.2013. No process charge was remitted and when defect was noted, two weeks' time was granted by the Registry on 02.04.2014. The matter came up for further consideration before this Court on 29.07.2015, when, considering the submission made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner, further period of 'two weeks' was granted. Still, nothing happened in the positive. No process charge has been remitted so far. The matter is still defective. There is no representation for the petitioner as well. In the said R.P. No. 761 of 2013 4 circumstance, we find that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter any further. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE P. SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-