Dismissed

E.Jacob Varghese v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC10 Jun 2015WA/935/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal, filed against a review order of the Single Judge, was dismissed. The High Court held it was within the Single Judge's jurisdiction to review a judgment that ignored a prior relevant judgment. The matter was remitted for further hearing without interference on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant free to approach Single Judge for early hearing.

E.Jacob Varghese Vs Kerala Water Authority — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/20TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 935 of 2015 ()

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP. NO. 118/2015 IN WP(C) NO. 17148/2014 DATED 11-03-2015

¶7

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN RP.NO.118/2015 IN WP(C).NO.17148/2014 :

¶8

E.JACOB VARGHESE, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.CHACKO KOCHU, CHACKO, ELANJICKAL, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, NIRANOM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., NOW RESIDING AT ELANJICKAL HOUSE PALLOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN -686 007.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.AZIZ

¶10

SRI.I.G.MANOHARAN SRI.N.N.PANKAJAKSHAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN CON. CASE/PETITIONER IN RP :

¶12

1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR- 685 033.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.

¶14

3. PULIKEEZHU BLOCK PANCHAYATH VALANJAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.- 689104, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE PULIKEEZHU BLOCK PANCHAYATH, VALANJAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. - 689104.

¶15

4. THE SECRETARY

¶16

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (LSGI), SABHALYAM COMPLEX, UNIVERSITY P.O., TRIVANDRUM – 695 034.

¶17

...2/-

¶18

WA.No. 935 of 2015 () -2-

¶19

5. THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM – 695 001.

¶20

6. THE FOOD SAFETY OFFICER CHENGANNOOR CIRCLE, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. - 689121.

¶21

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC R2, R4 TO R6 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

...3/-

¶25

WA.No. 935 of 2015 ()

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES :

¶28

ANNEXURE A1 :	COPY OF ORDER IN RP NO. 944/14 IN WP(C) NO. 17148/2014.
ANNEXURE A2	ORIGINAL OF THE ORDER DATED 11-3-2015 IN RP NO. 118/2015 IN WP(C) NO. 17148/14.
ANNEXURE A3	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-10-2012 IN WP(C) NO. 978/12.
ANNEXURE A4	MEMO DATED 18-9-2012 SUBMITTED BY AMICUS CURIAE IN WP(C) NO. 978/12.
ANNEXURE A5	COPY OF LETTER NO. A 5-554/14 DATED 27-8-2014 ADDRESSED TO MD.KWA BY SECRETARY, PULIKEEZHU BLOCK PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE A6	COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3-7-2014 IN WP(C) NO. 15849/2014.
ANNEXURE A7(A)	COPY OF ORDER OF STAY DATED 7-7-2014 IN WP(C) NO. 17148/14.
ANNEXURE A7(B)	COPY OF ORDER OF STAY DATED 21-7-2014 IN WP(C) NO. 17148/14.
ANNEXURE A8	COPY OF ORDER IN CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 09/2015.
ANNEXURE A9(A)	COPY OF GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO. 16/14 (ENVIRONMENT) DATED 12.12.2014 IN MALAYALAM.
ANNEXURE A9(B)	COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SELECTED EXTRACTS OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

**ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.935 of 2015

¶34

Dated this the 10^th day of June 2015

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Shaffique, J

¶37

The appeal is filed against the order in R.P.No.118/2015 in W.P.C.No.17148/2014. The writ petitioner is the appellant. According to him, the writ petition was already decided as per judgment dated 11/11/2014 allowing the writ petition. Further, the petitioner preferred R.P.No.944/2014 stating that though the prayer in the writ petition was to implement Ext.P5 resolution passed by the 3^rd respondent in the light of Ext.P8, the said rider does not find a place in the operative portion of the judgment. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 17/12/2014, allowed the review petition to the limited extent of modifying the operative portion of the judgment to the effect that Ext.P5 resolution of the 3^rd respondent shall be implemented in the light of Ext.P8. Thereafter, Kerala Water Authority filed another

¶38

W.A.No.935/2015

¶39

¶40

review petition as R.P.No.118/2015 inter alia stating that the judgment had been passed without taking into consideration all the factual circumstances especially the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12/10/2012 in W.P.C.No.978/2012. Further, it was pointed out that if the said judgment had been produced, the learned Single Judge could not have passed a final judgment. Therefore, the judgment passed was reviewed and the writ petition was posted for further hearing. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge ought not have passed the earlier judgment in the light of the submission made by Kerala Water Authority.

¶41

It is apparent that if a decision has been rendered without referring to an earlier judgment with reference to the very same subject matter, it is always open for a writ Court to review the judgment and exercise of the said jurisdiction, cannot be questioned. Under such circumstances, we do not think that the learned Single Judge

¶42

W.A.No.935/2015

¶43

¶44

committed any error in reviewing the judgment dated 11/03/2015 in W.P.C.No.17148/2014. Since the matter is already posted for hearing, no injustice is done to the appellant, as matters stand now. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Parties shall be free to appear before the learned Single Judge and seek for an early hearing.

¶45

With the above observation, this writ appeal is dismissed.

¶46

(sd/-)

¶47

(ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶48

(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

)

jsr

W.A.No.935/2015 4

W.A.No.935/2015 5

E.Jacob Varghese v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Jacob Varghese v. Kerala Water Authority

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

Jayalal D. Vs the Chief Manager/Authorissed Officer

M.M. Abdul Kareem Vs Government of Kerala

C.v.Vinesh Vs State of Kerala

Anna Sabitha Vs a.a.Judeson

Mohammedali.v Vs the District Registrar(General)

The Authorised Officer/Asst. General Manager Vs Muhammed Rafi C.H