Remanded

The Director General of Police v. Abdul Rahim O.K

Kerala HC9 Mar 2012RP/127/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the High Court set aside its previous order dismissing a writ petition on the ground that the issue was covered by a prior judgment. Finding the prior judgment inapplicable, the Court recalled the order and remanded the writ petition to an appropriate bench. It also dismissed a related contempt matter.

What did the court decide?

Recalled the judgment dated 28.10.2011; directed the Registry to post the writ petition before an appropriate bench; dismissed the contempt matter.

The Director General of Police Vs Abdul Rahim O.K — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/19TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 127 of 2012 (B)

¶6

----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.28411/2011 DATED 28-10-2011

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S):RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):

¶8

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (STATE POLICE CHIEF), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶9

2.` THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF), IDUKKI - 685 603.

¶10

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI - 685 603.

¶11

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DEVIKULAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI - 685 603.

¶12

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J.RAJASREE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONER IN WP(C):

¶14

ABDUL RAHIM O.K.,S/O.KHASIM, C.P.O.1850, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 603.

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2012 ALONG WITH COC.NO.164 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶18

R.P.No. 127 of 2012 & C.O.C.No. 164 of 2012 in W.P.(C) No.28411 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2012

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Sri. Babu.S.Nair enters appearance on behalf of the respondent in the review petition. Both the matters are heard in detail.

¶22

The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the review petitioners submits that the writ petition was disposed of at the initial stage, based on the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner, that the issue was squarely covered by Ext.P3 judgment. It was accordingly, that the writ petition was disposed of, giving appropriate direction to the concerned authority to consider the matter in the light of Ext.P3 judgment.

¶23

However, the specific case of the review petitioners is that Ext.P1 transfer order dated 11.10.2011 stands entirely on a different footing. The writ petitioner was transferred on public ground and the said order pertained only to two individuals;

¶24

which could not be treated on par with the transfer orders which

¶25

were under challenge in the writ petitions forming the subject

¶26

R.P.127/2012 & COC.164/2012 in W.P.C. 28411 of 2011 -2-

¶27

matter of Ext.P3 judgment.

¶28

On going through the materials on record, it is seen that Ext.P3 was passed by this Court when there was a 'mass transfer' of several persons, as specifically dealt with in paragraph 2 of the said judgment, wherein hundreds of persons were involved. It was with regard to the facts and figures brought on record, that this Court observed that the matter had to be reconsidered in the light of the observations made therein, thus giving appropriate direction. This Court finds that the submission made by the learned counsel for the present writ petitioner that the case in hand was squarely covered by Ext.P3, is not correct as such.

¶29

In the said circumstances, the matter requires to be reconsidered. The judgment passed on 28.10.2011 is recalled and the Registry is directed to post the writ petition before appropriate bench.

¶30

In the light of the verdict passed in the review petition, nothing further survives in the contempt matter and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶31

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶32

Kp/-

The Director General of Police v. Abdul Rahim O.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General of Police v. Abdul Rahim O.K

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

Ms.Hillwood Furniture (P) Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner

The Peermade Tea Company Limited Vs the Tahsildar (Rr) Peermade

A.K.George Vs Ramarajapremaprasad

V.S.Jyotish Kumar Vs District Collector

T.v.Sasikala Vs C.P.Joseph

P.Santhakumari Amma Vs the State of Kerala