This short order records the admission and disposal of a review petition. The court held that as the previous judgment did not dispose of the substantive contentions and the petitioner retains the right to further remedies, there was no reason to review the judgment.
Respondent is put to no apprehension of significant loss or damage.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/24TH JYAISHTA, 1939
RP.No. 468 of 2017 () IN WP(C).15244/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-05-2017 IN WP(C) 15244/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
------------------------------
DR.MARY MATHEW, AGED 55 YEARS,W/O ANTONY GEORGE KATTICARAN, SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTRA,KOCHI-682020.
BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. SRI.M.C.JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN CHARGE, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU BY SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR)
BY SRI. ROSHIN IPE JOSEPH, SC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DST
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,J.
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of June, 2017
The petitioner has filed this review petition
seeking to review the judgment of this Court dated 19.05.2017 in W.P.(C) No.15244 of 2017.
“To declare that the 3rd respondent is unfit to hold the charge of the Secretary of Greater Cochin
R.P. No. 468 of 2017
-: 2 :-
Development Authority in terms of Section 54(1)(f) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act,2016.”
R.P. No. 468 of 2017
-: 3 :-
hamper or trample any of the rights that may be available to the petitioner or to the respondents under the relevant law and applicable regulations. It is therefore, obvious that even the third prayer, as extracted above, made by the petitioner would be still available to him, if he intends to challenge further proceedings initiated or completed by the respondents based on the liberty granted to them in the judgment.
counsel for the petitioner informs me that after the judgment, that is sought to be reviewed, was delivered, the respondents have initiated certain action against the petitioner. Obviously, the terms of the judgment dated 19.05.2017 would not stop the petitioner from invoking any remedy as is available
R.P. No. 468 of 2017
-: 4 :-
to him or in raising any contention that may be legally raised by him, including for the prayer extracted above and the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue such remedies notwithstanding anything contained in the judgment that is sought to be reviewed.
7.In such view of the matter, I see no reason to review the judgment and I therefore, dispose of the review petition in terms of what I said above.
This review petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
DST
//True copy// P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition filed by the petitioner needs to be examined when the prayed relief is still available to them under the law and applicable regulations.
Whether the terms of the prior judgment would prevent the petitioner from challenging further proceedings initiated by the respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
DR. MARY MATHEW
GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
STATE OF KERALA
SRI. M.C. JOSEPH
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
