Partly allowed

Punja Special Officer, Punja'S Special Office, Alappuzha v. Sreejith T.K

Kerala HC12 Dec 2017RP/1034/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition by the State and Special Officer to condone delay of 857 days and allow review of a 2015 judgment regarding labor compensation claims under repealed irrigation legislation.

What did the court decide?

Reviewed the judgment of 10.07.2015 to permit the State to consider the appeal filed by the writ petitioner as one filed under Section 13(5) of the Kerala Irrigation Works Conservation Act, 2003.

Punja Special Officer, Punja'S Special Office, Alappuzha Vs… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 1034 of 2017 (W) IN WP(C).19426/2009

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).19426/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 10-07-2015

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1,2 & 4 IN WP[C]:

¶8

1. PUNJA SPECIAL OFFICER, PUNJA'S SPECIAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

BY Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIMAL K.NATH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P[C]:

¶13

1. SREEJITH T.K SHYNIVAS, CHERUKARA P.O., KAVALAM ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

2. CONVENER

¶15

K.L.BLOCK, AAPPUKAYAL PADASEKARAM, KAINAKARI P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶16

R BY SRI.A.JAYASANKAR R BY SRI.JOMY GEORGE R BY SRI.MANU GOVIND

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ami/

¶19

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶20

----------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1034 of 2017

¶21

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2017

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

C.M.Appl.No.471/2017

¶24

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking an order to condone the delay of 857 days in filing this review petition. The relief sought for in this C.M.Application is not opposed. Hence, the delay is condoned.

¶25

R.P.No.1034 of 2017

¶26

The petitioners, who are respondents 1, 2 and 4 in W.P.(C) No.19426/2009, are before this Court in this review petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 10.7.2015 in W.P.(C)No.19426/2009 to the extent of the direction contained in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, whereby the 1^st petitioner herein was directed to consider the claim made by the writ petitioner in Exts.P4 and P5, in terms of the provisions under Kerala Irrigation Works (Execution by Joint Labour) Act, 1967.

¶27

According to the petitioners, the fact that the aforesaid Act was repealed by the Kerala Irrigation Works Conservation

¶28

R.P.No.1034 of 2017

¶29

:-2-:

¶30

Act, 2003, could not be brought to the notice of this Court. Pursuant to the judgment dated 10.7.2015, Exts.P4 and P5 representations submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected by an order dated 15.2.2016. Since there is an analogous provision in the Act of 2003, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner against the said order dated 15.2.2016, under Section 8 of the Act of 1967 can be treated as an appeal filed under Section 35 of the Act of 2003. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the judgment of this Court dated 10.7.2015 may be reviewed to the extent of permitting the 3^rd petitioner State to proceed with consideration of the appeal filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 15.2.2016 as one filed under Section 35 of the Act of 2003.

¶31

Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners/respondents 1, 2 and 4, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner and also the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/3^rd respondent.

¶32

By the judgment dated 10.7.2015, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.19426/2009 by directing the 1^st petitioner herein to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 representations in terms of the provisions under the Act of 1967. Accordingly, the said

¶33

R.P.No.1034 of 2017

¶34

:-3-:

¶35

representations were considered and dismissed by the order dated 15.2.2016, which is under challenge in an appeal filed by the writ petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1967. The fact that the Act of 1967 was repealed by the Act of 2003, was never brought to the notice of this Court. Now, in view of the provisions under Section 35 of the Act of 2003, which is an analogous provision to Section 8 of the 1967 Act, the 3^rd respondent State can dispose of the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, as one filed under the Act of 2003.

¶36

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this review petition is disposed of by permitting the Government to consider the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, challenging the order dated 15.2.2016 of the Punja Special Officer, Punja Special Office, Alappuzha, as one filed under Section 13(5) of the Kerala Irrigation Works Conservation Act, 2003. The judgment dated 10.7.2015 in W.P.(C)No.19426/2009 will stand reviewed to that extent.

¶37

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶38

ami/13.12.17 //True copy// P.A.to Judge

Punja Special Officer, Punja'S Special Office, Alappuzha v. Sreejith T.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punja Special Officer, Punja'S Special Office, Alappuzha v. Sreejith T.K

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

Jose Varghese Vs the Regional Service Co-Operative Bank, Kaduthuruthy Branch

Pradeep.S Vs the Special Sale Officer

Isha Athussunna Al-Islamia Juma Masjid Vs the State of Kerala

T.P. Surendran Vs Mulakulam Service Co-Operative Bank

Sujatha Mathummal Vs the Kannur District Co-Operative Bank

Shaji.M.N Vs Commissioner of Excise