A review petition challenging a judgment that dismissed a writ petition regarding an industrial clearance application was dismissed. The court held that a newly produced agreement was not part of the original record.
The review petition was dismissed. The underlying judgment in W.P.(C.) No.2335/2010 was not altered.
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
MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932
RP.No. 620 of 2010(N)
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2335/2010 Dated 17/03/2010 ....................
REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC
--------------------------------------JOHN JACOB, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.P.JACOB, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PEPTURN INDIA, RESIDING AT MATTAKKEL PERUMAL BHAVAN, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC
MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
R.P.No.620 of 2010 in
W.P.(C.) No.2335 of 2010 (N)
Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Relying on Annexure A1 agreement allegedly executed by the petitioner and the owner of land on 31/10/2007, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings in paragraph 5 of the judgment that the petitioner has no title or claim over the land identified by the Panchayat for acquisition is incorrect. On that ground, learned counsel seeks review of the judgment.
R.P.No.620/2010 in WP(C) No.2335/2010
the judgment. Even otherwise, the case was decided on the materials produced, and the arguments advanced and Annexure A1 agreement now relied on were not a part of record in the writ petition.
Therefore, I am not persuaded to review the judgment. The review petition is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to review its judgment dismissing a writ petition where a new agreement is relied upon in the review petition.
JOHN JACOB
STATE OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
