Dismissed

The Kandallur Grama Panchayat v. Soudhamma

Kerala HC18 Jul 2018RP/584/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a review petition against an interim interlocutory order permitting bore well construction is not maintainable where no error is apparent on the face of the records, dismissing the petition but granting liberty to seek vacating the order via application.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file counter affidavit or application to vacate interim order.

The Kandallur Grama Panchayat Vs Soudhamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

RP.No. 584 of 2018

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/06/2018 IN WPC. 17754/2018)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT

¶8

THE KANDALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANDALLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANDALLUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 535.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3

¶11

1 SOUDHAMMA, W/O. CHELLAPPAN, AGED 58, UPPOOTTIL, PUTHIYAVILA, PATOLY MARKET P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 531.

¶12

2 THE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANDALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KANDALLUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 535.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶15

R2 - R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. DILEEP

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mks

¶18

23/07/2018

¶19

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶20

========================

¶21

Review Petition No.584 of 2018 in

¶22

W.P.(C) No.17754 of 2018

¶23

======================== Dated this the 18^th day of July 2018

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed by the 1^st respondent in the

¶26

writ petition seeking to review the interim order passed by this Court on 25.6.2018, permitting the petitioner to carry on with the construction of a bore well. It was clearly mentioned in the interim order that the order will be operative for a period of two months.

¶27

In my considered opinion being an interim order purely interlocutory in nature, there is no scope for filing a review petition, since there is no error apparent on the face

¶28

of the records or perversity in the order. The 1^st respondent

¶29

panchayat was at liberty to file a counter affidavit and bring up the matter before this Court or was liberty to file an

¶30

Review Petition No.584 of 2018 2

¶31

application for vacating the interim order.

¶32

That being the situation, I am of the considered opinion that the review petition is not maintainable under law. It is dismissed accordingly, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner either to file a counter affidavit to the writ petition or to file any application seeking to vacate the interim order passed by this Court.

¶33

Sd/

¶34

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶35

jm/

¶36

\True copy \ PA to Judge

The Kandallur Grama Panchayat v. Soudhamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kandallur Grama Panchayat v. Soudhamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jibin Jacob Vs K. Mohammed Y. Safirulla

Deepak v. Vs State of Kerala

Biju Scaria Vs Vazhathope Grama Panchayath

Parthasaradhi Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Pazhayannur Police Station

Vineesh Vs the District Collector, Palakkad District

Sureshkumar Vs George Varghese