Dismissed

The Principal Secretary, Finance(Esst-B) v. K.I.Hashim & Another

Kerala HC2 Aug 2010RP/689/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed two review petitions held to be devoid of merits and lacking valid grounds for review. The court rejected arguments based on a minister's desire to cancel an order and noted the petitioner's failure to appear.

What did the court decide?

The review petitions filed by the respondents in the underlying writ petition were dismissed.

The Principal Secretary, Finance(Esst-B) Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶3

MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932

¶4

RP.No. 689 of 2010(W)

¶5

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18786/2010 Dated 24/06/2010

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶8

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (EAST.B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMNET SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR,SPL.GP FOR FINANCE (SR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶12

1. K.I.HASHIM, SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. S.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, SENNIOR FINANCE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, ALONG WITH RP NO. 703 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ RP Nos 689 & 703 OF 2010 IN

¶16

W.P.(C) NO. 18786 OF 2010 (W)

¶17

=====================

¶18

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2010

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the review petitioners in RP Nos.689/10 and 703/10 respectively.

¶21

The ground urged in RP No.689/10 is that the Minister for Water Resources wanted Ext.P4 order to be cancelled and therefore, it was cancelled as per Ext.P5. A perusal of the review petition does not show any basis for such a demand of the Minister. Therefore, even if it was on the orders of the Minister that Ext.P4 order was cancelled, such cancellation could not have been a valid one. Therefore, this reason stated by the learned Government Pleader is no reason to review the judgment.

¶22

In so far as RP No.703/10 is concerned, first of all despite service of notice, the review petitioner did not appear before this Court when the writ petition was heard and the justification for his non appearance is that he believed that the 1^st respondent in the writ petition will defend the order. Even

¶23

RP Nos. 689 & 703/10

¶24

:2 :

¶25

otherwise, on merits also, no grounds have been made out for review of the judgment.

¶26

Review petitions are dismissed.

¶27

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶28

The Principal Secretary, Finance(Esst-B) v. K.I.Hashim & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Secretary, Finance(Esst-B) v. K.I.Hashim & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Cleetus Vs Commissioner,Land REVENUE,TRIVANDRUM150.

P.G.Satheedevi and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Korah K.Varghese Vs State of Kerala

The Kerala State Housing Board and Anr. Vs v.a.Mohammed Sali and Anr.

Rethy O. Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Ratna Singh Vs the State of Kerala