Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks to revise an order of the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, revoking an order under S.27 of the Kerala Police Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and directing a building to be released to the third respondent. Rival suitors staked their claim to 'Chaitanya', which housed the office of the District Committee of the Indian National Congress. In view of the simmering situation generated by rival factions, the District Magistrate promulgated an order under S.27 of the Act on 3-1-1978 and renewed it, time and time again. 2. While so, third respondent obtained a declaratory decree and an injunction in OS 526/83, Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam on 26-6-1984. One of the defendants therein moved for setting aside the exparte decree, and it was set aside, on 20-12-1986. That order was revised by this court in CRP 273/1987, restoring the decree and putting the stamp of finality on the rival claims. What followed, is the order under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri K. Ramakumar submitted that the order is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this court, that it reveals a total non-application of mind or in the alternative an application of mind to extraneous considerations, and that the order is tainted by illegality. Counsel had a further case that the order emanated from an impermissible chemistry of S.27 and 23 of the Act. The arguments were sought to be supported by legal principles of mellow vintage, laced with precedents. Counsel pointed to the efflorescence of new hues on the horizons, from Wednesbury principle to doctrine of proportionality. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Smt. Venkataraman v. Union of India (AIR 1979 SC 49), Suraj Pal v. State of Maharashtra ((1986) 4 SCC 378), Nottinghamshire County Council v. Secretary of State ((1986) 1 All. ER 199), R. v. Inner London Education Authority ((1986) 1 All. ER 19), N. Chellappan v. The District Collector, Kozhikode ((1970) 1 ILR Kerala 146) and other authorities. 4. Learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that what the District Magistrate did, was what any reasonable person should have done, following the decision of the civil court declaring the right of the third respondent, and issuing an injunction against defendants. 4. Learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that what the District Magistrate did, was what any reasonable person should have done, following the decision of the civil court declaring the right of the third respondent, and issuing an injunction against defendants. Reference was made to an order of a learned Single Judge in CMP 21577/83 in OP 7126/83 expressing the hope that the District Magistrate would not hand over the building to any person, unless he established his right in a civil court. This observation according to learned Advocate General, was the beacon light of the District Magistrate, in his troubled journey through the rough terrain and uplands, of the instant case. Advocate General also counselled that if this court is to find revisional jurisdiction in such matters, flood gates will be open bringing in a torrent of litigation into the court, touching on administrative orders passed by District Magistrates under different statutes. Principles of constructive res judicata, were also pressed into service. 5. On an anxious consideration of matters, I think I should not go into the contentions now raised, interesting though they are A learned Single Judge of this court has pronounced on contentions akin, against the impugned order in OP 5266/1987, a petition under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri K. Ramakumar contends that notwithstanding this, the question is open for consideration. He relies on the decision in Indian Oil Corporation v. State of Bihar (AIR 1986 SC 1780) in support. Considerations of judicial discipline and propriety, forbid me from going over the same grounds again. Neither endorsement, nor dissent would be proper. In this view, I dismiss the petition making it clear that I express no opinion on the merits of any of the grounds urged by either side.