Allowed

Joseph K.G. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016RP/920/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench allowed review petitions filed against earlier writ judgments. The court held that since the statute cited in the impugned judgments had been repealed, the said judgments required recall and the matter was posted before an appropriate Bench.

What did the court decide?

Review petitions allowed; judgments dated 07/07/2014 in W.P.C.Nos. 6326/2012 and 7842/2013 recalled; matter posted before appropriate Bench.

Joseph K.G. Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 920 of 2014

¶6

JUDGMENT DATED 7.7.2014 IN WP(C) 6326/2012

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

JOSEPH K.G., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O GEORGE, KAITHATHARA HOUSE, THURUTHIPPURAM P.O., PIN:680 667, KODUNGALLUR (VIA), PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR SRI.TINU T.JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

------------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,

¶14

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (ZONAL), ERNAKULAM, PIN:682 018.

¶15

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES

¶16

KERALA FISHERIES WELFARE FUND BOARD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN:683 513.

¶17

4. SHAJI

¶18

S/O MAICHLE, AVITTAMPILLY HOUSE, CHENDAMANGALAM, THIRUTHIPURAM, P.O., PIN:680 667.

¶19

5. PHILOMINA JOSE, KAITHARTHARA HOUSE, CHENDAMANGALAM, THURUTHIPURAM P.O., PIN:680 667.

¶20

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2016, ALONG WITH RP. 1140/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

msv/

¶23

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶24

*** * * * * * * * * * * *** R.P.No.920 of 2014 in W.P.C.No.6326 of 2012 &

¶25

R.P.No.1140 of 2015 in W.P.C.No.7842 of 2013

¶26

Dated this the 15^th day of June 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the statute which was referred to was repealed a long back and therefore the matter requires consideration. According to him, Kerala Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Act, 2010 applies to the fact situation.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, would submit that identical provisions have been made under the new Act itself and therefore there is no reason to recall the judgment.

¶30

Be that as it may, when a repealed statute has been referred to in the judgment, I am of the view that the judgment requires to be recalled.

¶31

Accordingly, these review petitions are allowed. The judgment dated 07/07/2014 in W.P.C.Nos.6326/2012 and 7842 of

¶32

R.P.No.920 of 2014 in W.P.C.No.6326 of 2012 & R.P.No.1140 of 2015 in W.P.C.No.7842 of 2013 :2:

¶33

2013 are recalled.

¶34

Post these writ petitions before the appropriate Bench.

¶35

(sd/-)

¶36

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶37

jsr

Joseph K.G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph K.G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/S Global Agritech

Abdul Sathar.a Vs Branch Manager, Ksfe

Prasanna Kumari Vs the District Collector Kollam & Others

E.B.Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Joseph Vs State of Kerala and Others