Dismissed

John Koshy v. Kerala State Housing Board

Kerala HC6 Jan 2016RP/1195/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the review petition filed against a judgment in a writ petition concerning fixation of liability under the Kerala State Rent Act. The Court held that the ground raised regarding non-fixation of liability was not a ground available for review as the decision had already affirmed the liability was fixed within time. The review was dismissed, but time for filing objections was ext

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed; time for filing objection is extended for further two weeks from the date of the order.

John Koshy Vs Kerala State Housing Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/16TH POUSHA, 1937

¶7

RP.No. 1195 of 2015 IN WA.2195/2015

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 2195/2015 DATED 07.10.2015 .....................

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT :

¶10

JOHN KOSHY

¶11

VADAKKEMELATHIL HOUSE, MUTHALAKODAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 584.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.DINNY THOMAS SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR SMT.ROSHNI MANUEL

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :

¶14

KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

BY SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, SC, K.S.H.B.

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶18

¶19

R.P. No. 1195 of 2015

¶20

¶21

W.A. No. 2195 OF 2015

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2016

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Shaffique, J.

¶25

This Review Petition has been filed seeking to review the judgment dated 07.10.2015 in W.A. No. 2195 of 2015.

¶26

The main contention urged on behalf of the

¶27

review petitioner is that though the petitioner had challenged Ext.P1 by issuing a notice, thereafter no steps were taken by the respondent authority to fix the liability within the period specified under Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR and therefore the Court should not have come to a conclusion that the liability has been fixed within time.

¶28

But on a perusal of the judgment and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we do not think that such a ground can be adjudicated in the form of a review. We have already come to a conclusion that Ext.P1 reflects fixation of liability which is well within the time prescribed under Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR. Under such circumstances such

¶29

R.P. No. 1195 of 2015 IN W.A. No. 2195 of 2015

¶30

ground is not available for the petitioner to seek review of the judgment.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner however seeks further time to file objection as permitted in the judgment aforesaid, as he could not file the objection within four weeks from the date of judgment.

¶32

Having regard to the factual circumstances involved in the matter, we do not think that any ground is made out to review the judgment. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed, but time for filing objection is extended for further two weeks from today.

¶33

Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice.

¶34

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶35

ttb/06/01

John Koshy v. Kerala State Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Koshy v. Kerala State Housing Board

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

V.v.James Kunju Vs Cochin Port Trust

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs P.S. Satyan

Sulaiman Vs P.N.Leela

Ansu Joseph Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sherin P G

Joy Sebastian Vs Authorised Officer/Chief Manager