This is a review petition challenging the judgment on the inclusion of a member in Anganwadi No.74. The single-judge bench found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the petition.
Review petition dismissed with no error apparent on the face of the record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/12TH PHALGUNA, 1938
RP.No. 137 of 2017 () IN WP(C).37128/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37128/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-12-2016
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SUBHASHKUMAR,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, THAIPARAMBIL, MARLA P.O., MALANKARA ESTATE, THODUPUZHA
BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, 'SAMUHYA KSHEMA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695012
2. ICDS OFFICER,
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, THODUPUZHA
3. MUJEEB T.M., THATTUPARAMBIL, EDAVETTY P.O., PIN-685588
R3 BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03- 2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dlk
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
R.P.No.137 of 2017
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2017
ORDER
This review petition is filed by the petitioner to review the judgment dated 19.12.2017. The contention raised by the petitioner in the review petition is in respect of the inclusion of a member in Anganwadi No.74, was considered by me in accordance with law and has rendered the judgment by providing sufficient interpretation to the relevant clause of Ext.P1. The reasons assigned by the petitioner to review the judgment were all raised in the writ petition and anxious considerations were given to them. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, there is no error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the petitioner to such a review of the judgment. There are also no illegalities or infirmities warranting interference in the judgment in the review petition.
Review petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE
dlk/4/3/
Subashkumar
Director, Directorate of Social Justice
Mujeeb T.M.
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
