Allowed

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

Kerala HC9 Feb 2011RP/86/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a review petition filed against a judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging the revised alignment of a bridge. The judge found the earlier judgment vitiated by error for overlooking specific evidence and reasons for the alignment change.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; judgment dated 12.1.2011 dismissing the writ petition is recalled.

George Joseph Vs the Vicar, Mar Sleeba… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932

¶4

RP.No. 86 of 2011(B)

¶5

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

¶6

( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC. 35455/2009 Dated 12/01/2011) ....................

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

GEORGE JOSEPH, KOYICKAL HOUSE, CHERPUNKAL, PULIYANOOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE VICAR, MAR SLEEBA CHURCH, CHERPUMKAL.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD, R & B DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, R & B DIVISION, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

5. MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, ARAMPULICKAL HOUSE, CHERPUMKAL, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶22

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

¶23

R.P.No.86/2011 in W.P.(C) NO.35455/2009

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2011

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Heard the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, leaned counsel appearing for the first respondent, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4.

¶28

The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 12^th January, 2011, upholding the proposed revised alignment for the bridge across the Menachil River on the Cherpunkal-Kozhuvanal road. The main ground urged in the review petition is that while this court upheld the changed alignment for the said bridge, this court did not examine the impact of Ext.P9 and that this court also did not examine the reasons which persuaded the official respondents to change the alignment.

¶29

Having heard the counsel for the parties and also having perused the judgment I am inclined to think that there is substance in what the petitioner contends. In that view of the matter, I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated by an error to the extent that is pointed out by the petitioner.

¶30

R.P.No.86 /2011

¶31

:2 :

¶32

Therefore, I allow the review petition and the judgment dated 12.1.2011 dismissing the writ petition is recalled.

¶33

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶34

vi/

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Joseph v. the Vicar, Mar Sleeba Church & 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

T.G.Muraleedharan Pillai & Others Vs the Secretary to Govt & Others

Marzook.P.M Vs Passport Officer and Another

P.O.Thomas and Another Vs Land Revenue Commissioner and Others

K.K.Abdul Jaleel Vs Kerala State Wakf Board

Shibu P.M. Vs the Village Officer

Sujith Nair Vs the Cochin University of Science and Tec