Allowed

Deepu.M.R. v. Sheeja Vijayakumar & Ors.

Kerala HC1 Sept 2011RP/650/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition and related writ petition, the Kerala High Court recalled its verdict and relegated the writ petitioner to avail statutory remedies against an order and subsequent licence issued to the review petitioner, without dealing with the merits of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was heard afresh and the writ petitioner was relegated to avail statutory remedy in respect of the impugned order and the licence granted to the review petitioner.

Deepu.M.R. Vs Sheeja Vijayakumar & Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 650 of 2011(B)

¶6

--------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14817/2011 Dated 01/06/2011)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT.

¶8

¶9

DEEPU.M.R, PUTHRAVILA, KIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU, THEMBAMUTTAM, RUSSELPURAM (PO), ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.V.ANIRUDHAN NAIR SRI.KURUPPATH BHASKARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4::

¶12

¶13

SHEEJA VIJAYAKUMAR, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, SUKUMARI MANDIRAM, BALARAMAPURAM, ALSO RESIDING AT POOJALAKSHMI, ALUVILA, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

¶16

THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶17

THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

¶18

TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA-695 121.

¶19

BY ADV. M. SREEKUMAR

¶20

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. M.R. SABU.

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)14817 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 14817 OF 2011 & R.P.No. 650 OF 2011

¶25

¶26

Dated, this the 1^st September, 2011

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The review petition has been filed by the petitioner who was arrayed as the 5^th respondent in the writ petition, stating that the direction given by this Court to the first respondent/State in the writ petition for considering Ext. P13 and to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, has virtually denied the review petitioner of all the rights and liberties with regard to running of the ARD No.381, as granted by the concerned authorities passing appropriate orders, followed by the licence issued in this regard. It is also stated that, pursuant to Ext. P12 order, which was under challenge in the writ petition, the review petitioner was given the licence as borne by Annexure V dated 25.05.2011, which however was not brought to the notice of this Court when the verdict was passed in the writ petition on 01.06.2011.

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No.14817 OF 2011 & R.P.No. 650 OF 2011

¶31

The learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits that pursuant to the verdict, a hearing is scheduled today. It is pointed out that in view of the observation of this Court in para 3 of the judgment that the writ petitioner, if at all aggrieved of Ext. P12( a copy of which has been produced as Annexure IV in the Review Petition), the only course open to the writ petitioner was to avail the statutory remedy, whereas no such course has been pursued by the writ petitioner, nor has he chosen to challenge Annexure V licence issued on 25.05.2011. This being the position, if Ext. P13 is permitted to be pursued before the first respondent in the writ petition, the statutory rights and liberties may get negated.

¶32

Heard the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader as well. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner. In the said circumstance, the verdict passed by this Court is re-called and the writ petition is heard afresh.

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.14817 OF 2011 & R.P.No. 650 OF 2011

¶35

After hearing both the sides, the writ petitioner is relegated to avail the statutory remedy in respect of Ext.P12 and the licence stated as issued in favour of the 5^th respondent, ( a copy of which has been produced as Annexure V in the Review Petition). It is open to the writ petitioner to pursue Ext. P9 appeal as well. It is made clear that, this Court has not dealt with the merits of the case involved and that all the contentions raised by the parties concerned are left open.

¶36

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶37

Deepu.M.R. v. Sheeja Vijayakumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu.M.R. v. Sheeja Vijayakumar & Ors.

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

Mohan Sankar.v.N Vs Moosakutty, Tahsildar

Sankaran Ilayath & Anr. Vs J.Reji Kumar

Savithri Amma Vs Sri.Abdul Samad

K.T.Manikandan Vs Smt.Remadevi

Sibil Raj Vs the Sales Tax Officer, Iind Circle.Alpy.

Sheeja Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala