This review disposal held that if any consequential action taken by the Collector pursuant to the original writ judgment is illegal, the petitioner is open to challenge such action.
Review petition disposed of with direction that petitioner can challenge illegal consequential action by the Collector.
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 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 47 of 2009(I) -------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29061/2007 Dated 04/10/2007 ....................
REVIEW PETITIONER :
IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURES AND PROJECTS LIMITED, PROJECT OFFICE JBIC , KERALA, WATER AUTHORITY PROJET BUILDING NO. 14/218 A, MATHILAKAM MARUTHORVATTOM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT GENERAL,MANAGER.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL
RESPONDENTS : -------------------
ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R1 SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA FOR R2-3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
R.P. No. 47 of 2009 in W.P(C) No.29061 of 2007
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009
ORDER
By judgment dated 4/10/2007, W.P(C) No. 29061 of 2007 was disposed of with the following directions.
“Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing that the 4th respondent shall intervene in the matter convene a meeting of both parties and find out a solution to the problem. This shall be done by the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.”
Now the petitioner seeks a review on the ground that in the consequential action which the collector has taken, he has exceeded his authority and has taken several decisions fastening monetary liability on the petitioner.
It is made clear that any consequential action taken by the collector pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued in the judgment is illegal for any reason and it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same.
Revision petition is disposed of with the above direction.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition challenging the consequential action of the District Collector is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner can challenge monetary liability fastened by the Collector in consequence of the original writ judgment.
IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURES AND PROJECTS LIMITED
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
PROJECT MANAGER, JBIC ASSISTED K.W.S.P
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
