Review petition filed by the Panchayath relying on procedural facts regarding a prior withdrawn writ petition was dismissed by the court as unneccessary to review the judgment.
Review petition dismissed.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
RP.No. 968 of 2008(N)
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20510/2008 ....................
REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER
BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
M.A.ABDUL HARIS, S/O. M.A.MOHAMMED KUNHI HAJI GOVT. CONTRACTOR, MUNAMBATH HOUSE CHENGALA P.O.,KASARGODE DISTRICT.
ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
R.P.No.968/2008 IN R.P.NO.968/2008
-------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008.
O R D E R
Review is sought for by the petitioner mainly contending that, the writ petition was filed at a time when the power of attorney holder of the writ petitioner had already approached this court and had filed WP(c).No.17592/2008 and for the same relief a second writ petition was filed during the pendency of the earlier one. Though factually, the averment is correct, it is seen that the pendency of the earlier writ petition has been disclosed in the writ petition. It is also a fact that on 9.7.2008, the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In view of this, I do not think it necessary to review the judgment.
Review Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
Kunnummel Block Panchayath
M.A. Abdul Haris
Antony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
