Dismissed

Jayakumar.N v. Ajeer

Kerala HC1 Feb 2016RP/84/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the petitioners challenged the judgment directing police action on a new complaint. They argued their earlier writ petition initially concealed facts regarding a stated parking stand. The court held that verifying these matters was the police's duty and no review was needed as correctness of the permit itself was not examined.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed on the ground that no necessity existed for review as the judgment did not examine the correctness of the permit.

Jayakumar.N Vs Ajeer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶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

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/12TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 84 of 2016 (A) IN WP(C).39207/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 39207/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-12-2015

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶8

1. JAYAKUMAR.N(SHOWN AS JAYAN IN THE WRIT PETITION) AGED 43 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN CHETTIAR, KANAVILA HOUSE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695142.

¶9

2. N.MURALEEDHARAN.N(SHOWN AS

¶10

MURALI IN THE WRIT PETITION) AGED 54 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN CHETTIAR, KANAVILA HOUSE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695142.

¶11

3. MAHAD.A ., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RASAK, KANAL PURAMBOKE, THODIPPALAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695142.

¶12

4. ABDUL GAFOOR M., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O MEERASAHIB, KADAPPURAM HOUSE, THAZHEVETTOOR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695142.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:

¶15

1. AJEER, S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, SHAMSUDHEEN MANZIL, MAITHANAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695142.

¶16

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695608.

¶17

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695608.

¶18

RP.No. 84 of 2016 (A)

¶19

4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695608.

¶20

5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695142.

¶21

6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695142.

¶22

R2 TO 6 BY GOVNT PLEADER SRI. C.R. SYAMKUMAR R1 BY SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

RP.No. 84 of 2016 (A)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

REVIEW PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE	A:	COPY OF THE HONOURABLE C	JUDGMENT IN WPC 39207/205 OF this OURT DATED 22.12.2015.
ANNEXURE	B:	COPY OF WPC	39207/2015 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS.
ANNEXURE	C:	COPY OF WPC	37602/2015 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS.
ANNEXURE	D:	COPY OF JUDG 11.12.2015.	MENT IN WPC 37602/2015 DATED
ANNEXURE	E:	COPY OF THE 4.7.2014.	PERMIT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED
ANNEXURE	F:	COPY OF WPC EXHIBITS.	27832/2014 ALONG WITH THE
ANNEXURE	G:	COPY OF THE 28.10.2014.	JUDGMENT IN WPC 27832/2014 DATED
RESPONDE	NTS'	ANNEXURES :	NIL.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE.

kp/-

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

¶32

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶33

R.P. No. 84 of 2016

¶34

against W.P.(C).No.39207 of 2015 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2016

¶35

ORDER

¶36

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶37

This review petition has been filed by respondents 6 to 9 in the writ petition stating that the writ petitioner had come before this Court without disclosing true and correct facts in the writ petition.

¶38

By virtue of the judgment we have only directed the police to consider Ext.P2 complaint preferred by the petitioner. According to the review petitioners, in Ext.P1 the entry regarding the stand at which the petitioner had to park the autorickshaw was not included when an earlier writ petition was filed. These are all matters to be verified by the police before taking appropriate action in Ext.P2 complaint.

¶39

Hence we do not think that there is any necessity to review the judgment, especially when we have not entered into the correctness or otherwise of the permit granted in favour of the petitioner. The review petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶40

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶42

kp/-02.02.16

Jayakumar.N v. Ajeer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar.N v. Ajeer

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

P.K.Babu Vs the Chief Engineer (Hrm), Kseb

Ammini K.A. Vs State of Kerala and Others

M/S.South India Produce Co. Vs Union of India

Asoka Kumar V.C Vs Dr.W.R.Reddy

Judish Vs St.Judes Shrine

Marine Products Exports Development Authority Vs K.Prabhavathy Murugesan