Review petition filed by two Assistant Engineers alleging non-servicence of notice in the original writ petition. Court noted Standing Counsel had filed appearance for other respondents, leading to no separate notice. Court recalled judgment and allowed review.
Review petition allowed and the underlying writ judgment 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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938H
RP.No. 206 of 2016 (V)
JUDGMENT DATED 09-06-2015 IN WP(C) 12580/2013
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6:
1. DIVYA VIJAYAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN - 682 020.
2. IBRAHIM M.M., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN - 682 020.
BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. MATHEW JOY, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682 020.
2. DAVID Y.,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682 020.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
msv/
-2-
-2-
RP.No. 206 of 2016 (V)
4. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682 020.
5. MOHANDASAN V., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682 020.
6. HEMA S., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682 020.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS R4 BY ADV.SRI.C.A.MAJEED
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
RP.No. 206 of 2016 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
| ANNEXURE A1: TRUE SELF |
COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR THE KERALA LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES, 2007. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A2: TRUE SELF |
COPY OF ORDER DTD.17.8.2007 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. |
| ANNEXURE A3: TRUE GOVER |
COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.12.2011 OF THE STATE NMENT. |
| ANNEXURE A4: TRUE REPOR WHICH IN 20 |
COPY OF THE PROFORMA ISSUED BY GCDA TO PSC FOR TING VACANCIES OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS WERE DIRECTLY RECRUITED 12. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
| EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS IN W |
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE REVIEW P(C) 6358/2016 FILED BY SMT.ATHIRA. |
|---|---|
| EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE | GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD.23.7.2015. |
| EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE SLP NO.16984/15 |
INTERIM ORDER DTD.9.7.2015 IN OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. |
| EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORITY RULES, |
KETALA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING 2015. |
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
P.V.ASHA J.
--------------------------------------------
R.P.No.206 of 2016
--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2016
O R D E R
This review petition is filed by respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition. It is their case that they did not receive notice in the writ petition and the judgment was rendered without hearing them. From the records of the writ petition, it is seen that the Standing Counsel, who appeared for the second respondent had filed memo of appearance for respondents 2 to 4. Therefore, even though notice was ordered at the time of admission to respondents 3 and 4, notice was not sent from the registry in view of the memo of appearance filed by the Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
R.P.No.206 of 2016
2
Accordingly the Review Petition is allowed and the judgment is recalled.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
AS/04/06/16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petitioners were properly served notice in the original writ petition considering the memo of appearance filed by the Standing Counsel.
Whether a judgment rendered referencing an unrepresented party's position requires revision.
Whether conditions warrant allowing a review petition to recall a judgment found defective in procedure.
Divya Vijayan
Ibrahim M.M.
Mathew Joy
David Y.
State of Kerala
Greater Cochin Development Authority
P.V.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
