This review petition challenging an order in an original petition regarding a building exemption and plan approval was dismissed. The Court held no error apparent on the face of the record existed given the completion of construction.
The review petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/29TH JYAISHTA 1934
RP.No. 347 of 2006-K
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-12-2005 IN O.P.NO.5771/1998-K]
REVIEW PEITIONER/ORIGINAL PETITIONER:
REKHA M.SASIDHARAN, VAKKOM HOUSE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT SREEDEVI, VL-1, VIKAS LANE, P.M.G, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH, SRI.A.R.DILEEP.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. P.M.SIBILI, HAKKI V.V.HOUSE, NJARAKKALKONAM, MADAVOOR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. MOHAMMED SHAFI,
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, S.C., R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,S.C, R5 BY SRI.CHACKO GEORGE, SENIOR ADVOCATE,
ADVS. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM), SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR, SRI.H.RAMANAN.
)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
R.P.347/2006 in O.P.5771/1998
.............................................. Dated this the 19th day of June, 2012
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
R.P.347/06
2
R.P.347/06
3
without prejudice to the contentions before the Civil Court.
The Review Petition is therefore, dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge
mrcs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment disposing of the Original Petition was vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Whether procedural developments and completion of construction justified without prejudice direction in the original order.
Rekha M.Sasidharan
State of Kerala
Chief Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority
Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram
P.M.Sibili
Anton Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
