Review petition filed by third respondent of previous order regarding parking stands for autorickshaws. Court held review not warranted due to lack of error on face of record and later cause of action, dismissing petition while leaving liberty to approach statutory authorities.
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 MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/3RD BHADRA, 1938
RP.No. 710 of 2016 (I) IN WP(C).28482/2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28482/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 01-06-2016
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT:-:
K.E.NOUSHAD,
CONVENER, AUTORICKSHAW THOZHILALI UNION, CITU, INTUC, AITUC, BMS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE, PERUMBAVOOR.
BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 & 5:-:
1. SUNDHARAN.P.D., ELOOR VEEDU, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
2. ARUN.P.V., PATHILIKUDY, MUDIKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
3. SREEKANTH.P.L., PUTHUSSERY PUTHENPURA HOUSE, AIMURY, KOOVAPPADY P.O.
4. SHAJI.N.B., NANGELIL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR.
5. REMYA PRASAD, ASWATHY BHAVAN, POONOOR, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O.
6. ABDUL RAZACK.M.M. MELETHADOM, PERUMBAVOOR.
7. SULAIMAN, MUNDAPPILLY HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
RP.No. 710 of 2016 (I) IN WP(C).28482/2015
8. ABOOBACKER.P.H., PULIKKAKUDY HOUSE, KINJIRAKKADU, RAYONPURAM P.O.
9. SALAM.T.A., THAMARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
10. SUNIL KUMAR.E.S., KAPPILASSERY HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
11. SALIM.K.M., KUNNASSERI KUDILIL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR.
12. TAJUDHEEN, KOTHAKULATHU HOUSE, KANJIRAKKADU, PERUMBAVOOR.
13. MUHAMMED.V.P., CHERUVALLYKUDY HOUSE, PARAPPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR.
14. ABBAS.T.P., THEKEYKUDY HOUSE, VALLOM, PERUMBAVOOR.
15. KASIM, S/O.PAREED, CHERUVALLYKUDY HOUSE, VALLOM, PERUMBAVOOR.
16. BIBESH, KOLLAMMAVUMKUDY HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
17. ALIKUNJU, MOOKADA HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
18. JAWAD V.BASHEER, VETTATHU HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
19. ASEES, KUNNATHAN HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
20. ANTONY JOSEPH,
21. THOMAS, MARANGATTIL HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
22. SATHYA PRAKASH, ASHRAYAKRIPA HOUSE, NORTH EZHIPURAM, MARAMPILLY P.O.
23. IJAS, S/O.PAREEDPILLAI, CHERUMOODAN HOUSE, CHIRAMOLAM, VAZHAKULAM.
RP.No. 710 of 2016 (I) IN WP(C).28482/2015
24. AJAS, S/O.PAREETHU PILLAI, CHIRAMOLAM, VAZHAKULAM.
25. ROY.K.J., S/O.OUSEPH, KORAKKAN HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
26. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 548.
27. STATION HOSUE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542.
28. PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
29. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI-11.
R29 BY SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. R1 TO R 25 BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT R26 & R27 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA R28 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 710 of 2016 (I) IN WP(C).28482/2015
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01.06.2016 IN WP(C)28482/2015. ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CARD.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
dlk
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
R.P.No. 710 of 2016 in W.P.(C)No.28482 of 2015
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
This review petition is filed by the third respondent in W.P.(C)No.28482/2015. It is apprehended by the review petitioner that, on the basis of direction issued by this Court with respect to the parking and picking up passengers from any location subject to original conditions made in the judgment under review is causing confusion to the respondent statutory authorities in respect of the stand to be provided to the respective autorickshaws of the petitioners in the writ petition. In the judgment it was categorically directed that, if any alteration is to be made in the permits in accordance with the directions contained above, first respondent will be at liberty to do so by issuing notice to the petitioners.
R.P.No. 710 of 2016 in W.P.(C)No.28482 of 2015 2
far as the question in the writ petition was concerned, it was with respect to the parking and picking up passengers from any location subject to the original conditions. I have not made any observation with respect to how the conditions is to be provided in the permit of the petitioners in the writ petition.
Review petition is dismissed, leaving open the liberty of the review petitioner to approach statutory authorities and pursue his remedies.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE
dlk/25/8/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed on the grounds of a later cause of action regarding the implementation of parking directives should be allowed.
Whether an error appears on the face of the record necessitating a review of the earlier judgment.
Whether the relief sought regarding the confusion caused to respondents by the implementation of court directions warrants judicial intervention at this stage.
KE NOUSHAD
SUNDHARAN.P.D.
ABUEL RAZACK.M.M. MELETHADOM
JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY
CORPORATION OF KOCHI
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
