Dismissed

Special Officer (Revenue) , K.S.E. Board v. G.T.N.Textiles Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Nov 2016RP/935/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the review petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and the condonation of delay application due to the recommendation of the learned Single Judge. The court held that since the issue was already heard by the Board officials, it cannot be assailed that there was delay in filing the review petition.

What did the court decide?

The application to condone delay and the review petition were dismissed.

Special Officer (Revenue) , K.S.E. Board Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 935 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 9776 OF 1999, DATED 30-03-2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶8

THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) , K.S.E BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN, S.C

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶13

G.T.N. TEXTILES LIMITED, P B NO. 101, ALUVA-683 101, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE , P.C SEKSARIA.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶18

*** * * * * * * * * * * *** C.M.Application No.471 of 2016 &

¶19

Review Petition No.935 of 2016 in O.P.No.9776 of 1999

¶20

Dated this the 7^th day of November 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 30/03/2012 in O.P.No.9776 of 1999.

¶23

C.M.Appl.No.471 of 2016 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 1386 days in filing the review petition.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that pursuant to the judgment dated 30/03/2012, the writ petitioner was heard by the Board Officials on 06/07/2012. It is submitted that the aforesaid circumstance itself would indicate that the Board Officials were in possession of the certified copy of the judgment at the time when the hearing was conducted and at least they were aware of the contents of the judgment. Therefore, it is not correct to say that there was delay on the part of the Advocate Clerk to submit copy application within time. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay would show that the Advocate Clerk appeared

¶25

C.M.Appl.No.471/2016 & R.P.No.935/2016 in O.P.No.9776/1999 2

¶26

for the Counsel had applied for a certified copy only on 21/05/2014. Certified copy was ready on 30/06/2014 and was delivered on 16/06/2014. The review petition was filed on 21/05/2014. But, it is relevant to note that when the issue relating to the subject matter has already been heard by the Board officials, it cannot be believed that the Board was totally unaware of the proceedings.

¶27

Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the review petition. Accordingly the application to condone the delay is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed.

¶28

(sd/-)

¶29

jsr

Special Officer (Revenue) , K.S.E. Board v. G.T.N.Textiles Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Special Officer (Revenue) , K.S.E. Board v. G.T.N.Textiles Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asokan Vs Commercial Tax Officer

G.Venkitesh Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Shah Enterprises Vs Income Tax Officer

A. Shajahan Vs Sunil Chandran

Alex Varghese Vs Recovery Officer Drt

Akbar Ali Vs Nilambur Municipality