The court dismissed the review petition filed by the Grama Panchayath for excessive delay and failure to file a counter affidavit, as the Panchayath slept over the matter for over four months after receiving the original judgment.
The review petition and the delay petition are dismissed due to excessive delay and lack of merit.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 27TH BHADRA, 1940
RP.No. 486 of 2018 IN WP(C). 24648/2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 24648/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 03-01-2018
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.1:
IDUKKI KANJIKUZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KANJIKUZHY P.O IDUKKI- 685 602.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:
1 VARGHESE SACARIA, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SACARIA, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHY (P.O) IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 602.
R.P No.486/2018
2
| 5 | THANKAPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, |
|---|---|
| VILANGUKALLEL HOUSE, KEERITHOUDU P.O. |
|
| IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 602. | |
| 6 | BABU, AGED 50 YEARS, |
| S/O. THOMAS | |
| PAZHAYARIKANDAM P.O KANJIKUZHY |
|
| IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 602 | |
| 7 | THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT |
| THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685 001 | |
| 8 | THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR |
| IDUKKI - 685 602. |
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
Review Petition No.486 of 2018 IN W.P. (C) No.24648 of 2009 & C.M.Appln No.242 of 2018
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2018
O R D E R
The review petition is filed by the 1st respondent Panchayath
in the writ petition along with a delay of 120 days in filing the review petition. The writ petition was filed in the year 2009. This Court disposed the writ petition on 03.01.2018. In the judgment, this Court directed the Panchayath to refund the entire amount paid by the petitioners. It is to be noted that the Panchayath entered appearance. However, no counter affidavit was filed.
R.P No.486/2018
4
relating to the matter are not available with them, they could not file review or appeal in time. It is to be noted that the Panchayath even has not chosen to file counter affidavit in the writ petition.
The matter was pending before this Court from 2009 onwards. The Panchayath's case is that the counsel had not intimated them about relinquishment of vakalath. Anyhow, I am not able to condone the delay for the simple reason that the Panchayath slept over for more than four months even after the receipt of the judgment on 07.02.2018 to move the review.
Therefore, the delay petition and the review petition are dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
R.P No.486/2018
5
ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE-I : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.3.1.2018 IN W.P.(C) 24648/2009 OF THIS COURT. ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.12.02.2018 OF THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE III : TRUE COPY OF HTE DECISION No.10/1 DTD.14.03.2018 OF IDUKKIKANJIKUZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. ANNEXURE IV : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU.
True Copy
P.S to Judge.
smp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the review petition should be condoned.
Whether the review petition is maintainable in light of the delay.
IDUKKI KANJIKUZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
1 VARGHESE SACARIA
O.S. VENU
K.R.SASIDHARAN
GEORGE
THANKAPPAN BABU
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
