Allowed

A.v.Sivadas v. the Revenue Divisional Officer,Thrissur

Kerala HC14 Feb 2011RP/110/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In R.P.No.110 of 2011, the High Court observed that the review petitioner, an interested party who instigated the revision, should be heard. The court ordered that notice be issued to the review petitioner before the 5th respondent considers the revision petition, and directed review of the earlier writ judgment.

What did the court decide?

Order reviewed in writ petition; directed that notice be issued to the review petitioner when the 5th respondent considers the revision petition Ext.P5.

A.v.Sivadas Vs the Revenue Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

RP.No. 110 of 2011(W)

¶6

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

¶7

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.1590/2011 DT 17.1.2011)

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): NOT PARTY TO THE WPC.

¶9

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

¶10

A.V.SIVADAS, AMBADATH HOUSE, PULLUR P.O. VIA IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR-680 683.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC.

¶13

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

¶14

1. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 58, S/O.THUMBARATHY KITTU, RESIDING IN HOUSE NO.XIV/354 OF THE MURIYAD PANCHAYAT, PULLUR VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶16

3. THE ADDL.TAHSIDLAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶17

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULLUR VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶18

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶19

6. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶20

7. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-001.

¶21

GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.SAJEEV

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.110 of 2011

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) NO. 1590 OF 2011

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2011

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

In WP(C) No.1590/11, judgment was rendered on 17^th January, 2011 directing that the 5^th respondent shall consider

¶30

Ext.P5 revision filed by the writ petitioner and that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P8 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶31

The main grievance raised in the review petition is that it was at the instance of the review petitioner that the proceedings which led to the revision petition were issued and the review petitioner being an interested party, should have been made a party in the writ petition. According to him, at any rate, he should also be heard when the revision petition is considered by the 5^th respondent.

¶32

I heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and also the writ petitioner, the 1^st respondent herein.

¶33

Having gone through the pleadings in the review petition and also hearing counsel on either side, I am satisfied

¶34

R.P.No.110 of 2011 in

¶35

W.P.(C) NO. 1590 OF 2011 :2 :

¶36

that there is substance in what is contended. Therefore, the review petitioner is also entitled to be heard as and when the revision petition is taken up for hearing as directed in the judgment. In that view, the judgment in the writ petition will stand reviewed and it is directed that, as ordered therein, when Ext.P5 revision petition is considered by the 5^th respondent, notice shall be issued not only to the writ petitioner, but also to the review petitioner herein and they shall also be heard.

¶37

Review petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this

¶38

order before the 5^th respondent for compliance.

¶39

Review petition is disposed of as above.

¶40

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶41

A.v.Sivadas v. the Revenue Divisional Officer,Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.v.Sivadas v. the Revenue Divisional Officer,Thrissur

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

George Joseph Vs the Vicar, Mar Sleeba Church & Ors.

K.K.Abdul Jaleel Vs Kerala State Wakf Board

Shibu P.M. Vs the Village Officer

Kalasakkaran Latha Vs K.v.Usha

Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs M.C.Padmanabhan

Arun Mozhi Varman.K Vs the University of Calicut