Dismissed

K.N.Raghavan v. P.v.Vijayalakshmi

Kerala HC15 Dec 2016RP/927/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged a Court's disposition noting that a District Collector could not issue an order contrary to a Government Order. The Court observed that if the petitioner has an independent right to review the Government Order, they may approach the Government, provided the writ petitioner is heard. The petition was disposed, clarifying the Court did not approve the Government's rev

What did the court decide?

Disposed of; clarified that Court did not approve Government's review and matter is for Government to decide maintainability.

K.N.Raghavan Vs P.v.Vijayalakshmi — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 927 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 31286/2014, DATED 02-12-2015

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P(C).NO. 31286/2014 :

¶8

K.N.RAGHAVAN,

¶9

S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, AGED 76 YEARS, SANTHI NIKETHAN, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 011.

¶10

BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SENIOR ADVOCATE)

¶11

ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 2, & 4 TO 6 IN W.P(C).NO. 31286/2014 :

¶13

P.V.VIJAYALAKSHMI, 'HARISREE', PUNCHAYIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 011.

¶14

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENU DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶16

CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 011.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶18

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELLICHERRY, PIN-670 101.

¶19

R1 BY ADVS. SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K.

¶20

SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES

¶21

SMT.GAYATHRI KRISHNAN

¶22

R2, R3, R5 & R6 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.GOPINATHAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Msd.

¶25

RP.No. 927 of 2016

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶28

NIL

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶30

ANNEXURE R1(1): TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.11.2016. ANNEXURE R1(2): TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT IN THE HEARING CONDUCTED ON 04.11.2016.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ============================== R.P.No.927 of 2016 in

¶35

W.P.(C).No.31286 of 2014

¶36

============================== Dated this, the 15^th day of December, 2016.

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

This review petition is filed by the third respondent in the writ petition stating that, this Court disposed of the writ petition, taking note of Ext.P2 Government Order and holding that District Collector cannot therefore issue Ext.P6 order overlooking the directions in Ext.P2 Government Order. Thus, this Court interfered the decision of the District Collector in the light of Ext.P2 Government Order. The petitioner now wants to review Ext.P2 Government Order before the Government by approaching the Government. Therefore, it is contended that the observation in the writ petition shall not stand in the way of approaching Government to review in Ext.P2. However, learned counsel for the writ petitioner opposed the prayer and submitted that since the matter has been concluded by Ext.P2, Government has no power to review its own order and there is no scope to review the judgment.

¶39

This Court is of the view, if the petitioner had an

¶40

R.P.No.927 of 2016 in

¶41

W.P.(C).No.31286 of 2014 : 2 :

¶42

independent right to review the Government Order, petitioner is free to do so. However, if Government before entertaining any review and considering the same, certainly shall hear the writ petitioner before taking a decision.

¶43

With the above observation, the review petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not given a stamp of approval for the Government to review the order. It is for the Government to decide maintainability of such review petition before it.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶46

¶47

[True copy]

¶48

P.A to Judge

K.N.Raghavan v. P.v.Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N.Raghavan v. P.v.Vijayalakshmi

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

M/S. Dentcare Dental Lab (Pvt) Ltd. Vs Mr. Mohammed Ismail.K.M

Shekharan P.A Vs Vincen M.Paul

Ramanika Jewellery Vs the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad

Smt.Geetha Narayanan Vs the Labour Court, Ernakulam

Josekutty John @ Jimmy Vs Arya

All Kerala Security Services Employees Association, Intuc Vs the H.R.Manager, G4S - Secure Solutions (India) Private Limited