Review petition dismissed. However, appeal filed against Ext.P5 within two weeks will be treated as timely; implementation of Ext.P10 stayed pending appellate committee disposal.
Implementation of Ext.P10 stayed pending appeal disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
FRIDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2007 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1928
RP.No. 951 of 2006(W)
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27071/2006 Dated 26/10/2006
: PETITIONER
K.P.ASHARAF, KARIMUTTATHU VEEDU, WARD NO.5, MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SC
SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANSAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
R.P. No. 951 OF 2006
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Sanal Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C.V. Manuvilson, Standing Counsel for the Panchayat. The Standing Counsel would seriously refute the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that the issue is covered by judgment in WP(C) No.18119 of 2006. According to him, the judgment in Thomas Paul and another V. State of Kerala & others (2006 (3) KLJ 777) cannot be applied in this case because the parties in that petition had already exhausted statutory remedies before approaching this Court.
RP No. 951/2006
2
down by the judgment in Thomas Paul's case(supra)applies, it may not be necessary for the Panchayat to go into other factual aspects. The crux issue which has to be considered by the appellate committee will be whether any notification has been duly published in respect of the road upon the building has been constructed by the review petitioner.
Under these circumstances, I dismiss the Review Petition. However, I further direct that if an appeal is preferred by the review petitioners against Ext.P5 within two weeks of receiving copy of this judgment, such appeal will be entertained by the committee as one filed on time and dispose of in accordance with law. Till such time as the prospective appeal is disposed of by the Committee, the implementation of Ext.P10 will be kept in abeyance.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
RP No. 951/2006
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Review Petition should be dismissed or the issue raised be examined on merits.
Whether the principles laid down in Thomas Paul's case apply to the current case where statutory remedies were not exhausted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thomas Paul and another V. State of Kerala & othersDistinguished¶27
(2006 (3) KLJ 777)
WP(C) No.18119 of 2006Referred¶27
K.P.ASHARAF
MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
STATE OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
