Dismissed

K.K.Biju v. P.Shajahan

Kerala HC1 Sept 2014RP/603/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by an officer seeking review of a judgment directing authorities to reconsider his representation regarding removal from service. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed; no interference warranted as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

K.K.Biju Vs P.Shajahan — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/10TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

RP.No. 603 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-12-2013 IN WP(C).NO.29635/2013.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.4:

¶8

K.K. BIJU, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, KOZHIKODE-673 001, (PRESENTLY WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, (ECONOMIC OFFENCES-III, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-3:

¶11

1. P. SHAJAHAN, EZHUTHACHAN PARAMBU, VATTAPARAMB, CHALIYAM, KOZHIKODE-673 301.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

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

¶14

4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RANGE OFFICE, KANNUR-670 001.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH. R2 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.A. FAYAZ.

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

RP.No. 603 of 2014

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 09/06/2014.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

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

¶28

R.P. No.603 of 2014

¶29

In W.P.(C) No.29635 of 2013

¶30

Dated this the 01^st day of September, 2014.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

This review petition has been preferred by the

¶33

4^th respondent in WP(C) No.29635 of 2013, which was filed by the 1^st respondent in the review petition. The specific prayers in the writ petition (as extracted in the judgment), included a relief sought for, to direct respondents 1 and 2 therein, to take necessary steps to remove the 4^th respondent from police service and also to take necessary steps in furtherance to the orders passed by the Inspector General of Police, after conducting a detailed enquiry.

¶34

The writ petitioner had also filed a representation before the competent authority projecting the grievance and it was considering the limited extent of relief pressed before this Court to cause the representation to be considered, that the writ petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 03.12.2013, directing the 1^st respondent/State in the writ petition to consider

¶35

R.P. No.603 of 2014 In W.P.(C) No.29635 of 2013 2

¶36

the representation and pass appropriate orders. The merit of the

¶37

case was never gone into.

¶38

The grievance of the review petitioner is that, pursuant to the said direction, the Government has passed G.O.(Rt) No.1600/2014/Home dated 09.06.2014 (copy of which has been produced as Annexure A1), whereby a review DPC has been proposed to be held for considering the issue projected therein. This made the review petitioner to approach this Court, seeking for review of the judgment.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner at length.

¶40

After going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that no merit adjudication was done by this Court, while disposing of WP(C) No.29635 of 2013, but for directing the concerned respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders, on the representation preferred by the writ petitioner. This has led to Annexure A1 order dated 09.06.2014. If the said GO has been passed by the concerned authority, beyond his powers or

¶41

R.P. No.603 of 2014 In W.P.(C) No.29635 of 2013 3

¶42

without any regard to the actual facts and figures or against law, it is always open for the review petitioner to challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and as such, no interference is warranted. This is more so in view of the law declared by the Apex Court, as to the scope of review as per the decision reported in Smt. Meera Bhanja V. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury) AIR

¶43

1995 SC 455 .

¶44

The review petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶45

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶46

K.K.Biju v. P.Shajahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Biju v. P.Shajahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Kunjumon Vs Shri. K. Ramachandan

Mujeeb C.H Vs v.Somasundaran

Dr.K.Jayaraj Vs K.M.Abraham

Dr.Rekha U.S. Vs State of Kerala

R. Dakshayani (Retd. Principal) Vs the Administrator

M. Abdul Jabbar Vs the Kerala Water Authority