ABDUL KAREEM Vs. D M O ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of jurisdiction arises in this review and as Khalid, J., thought the question has to be decided by a Division Bench this has come up before us on an order of reference passed by the learned Judge.

(2.) Writ Appeal 75 of 1973 was decided by a Division Bench composing of Raghavan C. J., and Khalid, J. Since then Raghavan C. J., retired from service and the application for review was, therefore, presented before Khalid, J. The O. P. from which the Writ Appeal arose was one under Art.226 of the Constitution to quash certain orders passed by the District Medical Officer of Health and the Director of Health Services against the petitioner one P. K. Abdul Kareem, a hospital attender. The learned Single Judge dismissed the O. P. Against it the Writ Appeal was filed before a Division Bench and that was dismissed in limine. It is against the order of the Division Bench that the review has been filed. Under O.47 R.5 CPC., where one of the judges who passed the decree or order continues to attach himself to the court at the time the application for review is presented can bear the application; but the question here is whether the review itself is maintainable. S.141 CPC. lays down that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. Art.226 of the Constitution has conferred an extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court and the mode of exercising the same is governed by Rules that the court has framed. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Ramsingh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1969 Raj. 41) has, in similar circumstances, held:

(3.) A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Chenchanna Naidu v. Praja Seva Transports Ltd. ( AIR 1953 Mad. 39 ) held that: