Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.T.JOSE versus JOSE CHEMBERY, S/O. DEVASSIA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.T.JOSE v. JOSE CHEMBERY, S/O. DEVASSIA - RP No. 925 of 2006(S) [2007] RD-KL 1830 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 925 of 2006(S)

1. P.T.JOSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. JOSE CHEMBERY, S/O. DEVASSIA,
... Respondent

2. THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.IYPE

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN

Dated :23/01/2007

O R D E R

(V.K.BALI, C.J & M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)

R.P.No. 925 of 2006 in W.P.(C).No.24213 of 2006

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2007

O R D E R

Ramachandran, J:

Review Petition is filed at the instance of the 4th respondent. The writ petition filed by the petitioner/Ist respondent herein [W.P.(C).No.24213 of 2006] had come up for admission on 13-09-2006, and taking notice of the submissions made on behalf of the Government, it had been disposed of with a direction to the District Collector, Kannur to take up and dispose of Ext.P4 representation, filed at the instance of the petitioner in the writ petition, in the light of Ext.P6 report filed by the Tahsildar. According to the petitioner herein, Ext.P4 had been listed for hearing on a number of days, but as the complainant was not present, the hearing had been completed and the District Collector had addressed the Government as regards the follow up actions that are to be taken. According to the petitioner, the directions in the judgment came to their notice only when there was a fresh notice issued at the instance of the [RP No.925 of 2006] -2- District Collector on the same subject (Annexure-7), and as this might not have been encouraged, the application for review of the judgment had been necessitated to be filed.

2. Notice had been issued in respect of the Review Petition and we had heard the parties. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed another writ petition as W.P.(C).No.451 of 2007 as well. It had been suggested that the two writ petitions could be taken up and disposed of together.

3. As the directions had been issued by us without being apprised of the full facts, and this was done without notice to the affected party (4th respondent), we find that a prima facie case had been made out for reviewing the judgment. The Review Petition is allowed and the judgment dated 13-09-2006 in W.P.(C).No.24213 of 2006 is recalled and set aside. V.K.BALI (CHIEF JUSTICE) M.RAMACHANDRAN

(JUDGE)

mks/


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.