In this review petition, the High Court of Kerala acknowledged an error in the original judgment where the wrong precedent was cited regarding a ban on sand transportation. The court allowed the review and recalled the impugned order.
Review petition allowed; the previous judgment is recalled.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/19TH MAGHA 1933
RP.No. 96 of 2012 (I)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.35084/2011 DATED 23-12-2011
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1. KESAVAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN,
KOCHIRATHEL HOUSE, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-14B/8964).
2. RAJARAJAN, S/O.KESAVAN,
KOCHIRATHEL HOUSE, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
(REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-17B/5868).
BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SMT.SMITHA BABU.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE PONNANI MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 577.
2. PURATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PURATHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 102.
3. THE PORT CONSERVATOR, PORT AND SHIPPING OFFICE, PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 577.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL, SC. R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.NOBLE MATHEW.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.96 OF 2012
in
W.P.(C) NO. 35084 OF 2011
===================
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2012
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
Therefore, I am satisfied that there was a mistake in the judgment and the review petition is allowed and the judgment is recalled.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the review petition on the ground of a clerical mistake regarding the citation of precedent?
KESAVAN
RAJARAJAN
THE PONNANI MUNICIPALITY
PURATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THE PORT CONSERVATOR
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
