Remanded

Leena v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2013WP(C)/18444/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order rejecting her review petition, specifically citing lack of supply of the vigilance report. This Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the first respondent for re-hearing after providing the petitioner a copy of the report and hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the review petition and remitted for re-hearing after supply of vigilance report. The interim order continued.

Leena Vs the State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/25TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 18444 of 2007 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

LEENA, W/O S.RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 'JAYANTHI LAND', EZHIPPURAM, PARIPPALLY KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT(E) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶12

3. THE KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN R3 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR R3 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

tss

¶16

W.P.(C) NO.18444/2007

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 29.5.1990.

¶20

P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 26.5.2004.

¶21

P3:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW DTD. 4.1.2006.

¶22

P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 12.10.2006.

¶23

P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 2.11.2000.

¶24

P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.30863/2006 DT.D 19.2.2007.

¶25

P7:- COPY OF A NOTE OF ARGUMENTS DTD. 18.5.2007.

¶26

P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 24.5.2007.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶28

R3(a):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE INSPECTION AND VERIFICATION REPORT PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION OF HIS UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION.

¶29

R3(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A4/176/2000 DTD. 2.11.2000 OF THE THEN SECRETARY, KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶30

R3(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.27695/RA3/07/LSGD DTD. 8.6.2007 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.18444 of 2007

¶36

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

¶37

Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2013.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order passed by the first respondent rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the vigilance report was not supplied to the petitioner.

¶41

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶42

case, I set aside Ext.P8 order and remit the matter to the 1^st respondent for re-hearing in accordance with law. The copy of the vigilance report said to have been relied on by the authorities shall be supplied before taking any action. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. The interim order passed by this Court on 15.06.2007 shall continue till the disposal of the review petition.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No. -:2:-

Leena v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leena v. the 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

The Manager & Another Vs Manager, Al-Falah Women'S Islamic

Babu Ommen Vs the Asst. P.F.Commissioner, Trivandrum

A.Sainulabdeen Vs the State of Kerala

Gopinadhan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Nehru College of Engineering Vs State of Kerala

M.Rohini Vs the Labour Court, Kannur