Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI.P.I.THAJUDEEN,REVATHY PLAZA PALACKAL versus GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SRI.P.I.THAJUDEEN,REVATHY PLAZA PALACKAL v. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 15143 of 2007(C) [2007] RD-KL 8510 (24 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 15143 of 2007(C)

1. SRI.P.I.THAJUDEEN,REVATHY PLAZA PALACKAL
... Petitioner

Vs

1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER CIVIL SUPPLIES,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

5. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

6. SRI.JITHIN JOY,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

For Respondent :SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :24/05/2007

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN,J


================
R.P.No.645 of 2007 in W.P.(C).No.15143 of 2007
======================

Dated this the 23rd day of July 2007

ORDER

The state has filed a review petition for review of the portion of the judgment which directs that till Ext.P9 stay application is considered and orders passed thereon, the second respondent shall not implement Ext.P8 order. The learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my attention that the sixth respondent in the present review petition had filed an appeal against the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed, in which the very same contention was raised which was disposed of, as follows:

"Before considering the stay petition if Ext.P8 order is implemented, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of the money and therefore, the learned Single Judge has only directed the authorities to keep Ext.P8 order in abeyance till the stay petition filed by the petitioner before the State Government along with his revision petition is decided one way or the other. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in no way affects the interests of any one of the parties to this proceedings. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected." R.P.No.645/2007 in W.P.(C).No.15143/2007 Since the judgment has been confirmed in writ appeal, there is no scope for reviewing the judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

dvs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.