Dismissed

Binu.P.N. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2012RP/103/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition filed against a dismissed writ petition, the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record because a relied-upon vigilance report did not exist. The petitioner relied on RTI responses to show the report was absent. The court observed that the RTI responses did not disprove the report's existence and dismissed the re

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed.

Binu.P.N. Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/19TH MAGHA 1933 RP.No. 103 of 2012 (G) IN WPC/22062/2011

¶5

----------------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.22062/2011 DATED 19-09-2011)

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :

¶7

BINU.P.N., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RAJU P.N., PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695011.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR,

¶12

SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD - 673 121.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEERAL - 673 595, WAYANAD.

¶15

BY SRI.NOBLE MATHEW, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

AMV

¶18

RP.No. 103 of 2012 (G) IN WPC/22062/2011

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE AI. : COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. ANNEXURE AII. : COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED TO THE ANNEXURE AI.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.103 OF 2012

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) NO. 22062 OF 2011

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2012

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The writ petition was dismissed upholding Ext.P7, which is a Government order issued based on report No.39/10 dated 14/12/10 of the Director of Survey, Vigilance, which is a Government order. In this review petition, relying on Annexures A1 and AII, petitioner contends that there is no such vigilance report and therefore according to him, the judgment is vitiated for an error apparent on the face of it. Annexure A1 is the request made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act where instead of asking for report No.39/10 dated 14/12/10 of the Director of Survey, Vigilance, the existence of which is disputed by the petitioner, what he asked for is the enquiry report based on the complaint made by the former MLA, Sultan Bathery. To this question, Annexure A2 answer has been given in the negative.

¶33

In my view, neither A1 or A2 disproves the existence of the report, which is relied on in Ext.P7. For that reason, I am not

¶34

R.P.No.103 OF 2012 in

¶35

W.P.(C) NO. 22062 OF 2011

¶36

:2 :

¶37

inclined to think that the petitioner has demonstrated an error apparent on the face of the judgment warranting exercise of review.

¶38

Review petition is dismissed.

¶39

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶40

Binu.P.N. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu.P.N. v. State of Kerala

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

Subair Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

V.P.Ninish Vs Transport Commissioner

John J. Vs Union Bank of India

Kesavan Vs the Ponnani Municipality

Vinod Thomas Vs the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Trib

Jayachandran Nair Vs the Authorised Officer