The High Court disposed of this review petition by recalling the impugned judgment which overlooked that one party was deceased. The matter was remitted to the original Bench, and interim orders restricting the private market were maintained.
The impugned judgment recalled and matter remanded to original writ petition. Interim orders continued until listing.
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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2019 IN WP(C) 17174/2017(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/STRANGER/REVIEW PETITIONER:
1 RANI CHANDRA P.S, AGED 52 YEARS W/O ASHOK KUMAR T, ANUSHMA, KURINCHIMON, KATTAKKAL ROAD, KUNDAMON BHAGOM, VILAVOORKKAL, PEYADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA, PIN-695 573.
P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 133.
P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 133.
BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-7:
1 SUDHAKARAN NAIR AGED 83 YEARS S/O VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, PEELIYAMKONAM, KULATHOOR, VENKADAMPU (PO) NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 506.
2 THIRUPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUPURAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 125.
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
2
3 SECRETARY, THIRUPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUPURAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 125.
5 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NEYYATTINKARA-695 121.
7 T. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 86 YEARS S/O UDAYAN PILLAI,THANU PILLAI, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEEDU, PAZHAYAKADA, THIRUPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121(DEAD).
8 K.P.MOHANDAS, S/O KOCHUKUNJU, CHERIYA PULLINGAL VEEDU, PUTHENKADA, THIRUPURAM P.O.THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 121. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.BINDUDAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.HARISH R4 TO R6 BY SMT. AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
3
ORDER
This review petition has been filed by third parties seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 24.06.2019 in W.P.(C)No.17174 of 2017, which was one filed
by the 1st respondent herein, who is stated to be a person having right over 50 cents of property comprised in Re-survey No.62-1-B of Thirupuram Village, where a private market is functioning for the last more than 125 years, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 therein to stop the illegal functioning of the aforesaid market in the said property at Pazhayakada, where a private market had earlier functioned under a valid licence issued by the 3rd respondent, who is the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayath.
4
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
petition was disposed of with the following directions :
“7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 5, this writ petition is disposed of recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that, based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the Grama Panchayat has already taken a decision not to permit anyone to conduct private market in the property having an extent of 50 cents of property comprised in Re-Survey No.62-1-B of Thirupuram Villlage, without obtaining necessary licence.
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
5
for consideration this Court passed the following order;
“The 1st petitioner has filed a memo to withdraw I.A.No.1 of 2019.
It is for the 1st petitioner to file an application for that purpose, supported by her affidavit.
The 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.17174 of 2017, who is arrayed as the 7th respondent in this review petition, died on 30.10.2018, after the receipt of notice in that writ petition. He is a relative of the writ petitioner. His death was not reported before this Court by filing a memo/application.
The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who is the 1st respondent in this review petition, would submit that the said respondent was only a formal party in the writ petition and as such, his death during the pendency of that writ petition has no consequence.
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
6
Shri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel, enters appearance for the 1st respondent. Shri.K.S.Bharathan, the learned counsel, enters appearance for respondents 2 and 3. The learned Government Pleader enters appearance for respondents 4 to 6.
The question as to whether the legal heirs of the 7th respondent have to be impleaded, will be decided later.
I.A.No.2 of 2019
There will be an interim stay as prayed for, for a period of two months.
List on 04.12.2019.
It is made clear that this interim order will not enable anyone to conduct private market in the property in question, without obtaining necessary licence from the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat.”
further consideration, this Court passed the following order;
“On 19.11.2019, when this review petition came up for consideration, this Court granted an interim stay as prayed for, for a period of two months. In the said order, it was made clear that the interim order will not enable anyone to conduct private market in the property in question, without obtaining necessary licence from the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat.
7
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
On 12.12.2019, when this review petition came up for consideration along with Contempt of Court Case (C) No.2263 of 2019, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned Government Pleader for respondents 4 to 6 were directed to get instructions as to whether the private market in question is being conducted even after the order of this Court dated 19.11.2019, without obtaining necessary licence from the Grama Panchayat.
Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 6th respondent Sub Inspector of Police, would submit that the private market in the property in question is being conducted without any licence from the Grama Panchayat. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would also support the said submission made by the learned Government Pleader. Adv.Kiranlal, the learned counsel, who entered appearance for the 1st petitioner (since Adv.K.B.Pradeep relinquished vakkalath) would submit that the 1st petitioner is staying far away from the property in question and she has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the private market conducted in the property in question.
In such circumstances, there will be an interim order directing respondents 4 to 6 to take necessary steps to ensure that no private market is conducted in the
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
8
property in question by anyone including petitioners 2 and 3.”
of 2020 seeking an order to stay the operation of Annexures R1(f) and R1(g) pending disposal of the review petition; I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking an order to restrain the respondents from running the private market in the property having an extent of 50 cents comprised in Re-survey No.62-1-B of Thirupuram Village on the strength of licence issued pursuant to Annexures R1(f) and R1(g); I.A.No.3 of 2020 seeking an order to implead the counter petitioners 10, 11 and 12 therein as additional respondent Nos.9, 10 and 11 in the review petition and; I.A.No.4 of 2020 seeking an order to accept Annexures R1(a) to R1(g) documents.
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
9
(C)No.17174 of 2017 was disposed of, without noticing the fact that the 6th respondent in the writ petition was no more. The said fact is not in dispute. The submission made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, which this Court has already taken note of in the order dated 19.01.2019, was that the 6th respondent in the writ petition was only a formal party and as such, his death during the pendency of the writ petition has no consequence. However, as already noticed, going by the averments in the writ petition, there is an inter-se dispute between the writ petitioner and the 6th respondent therein regarding the licence to run the private market in question.
In such circumstances, this review petition is disposed of by recalling the judgment dated 24.06.2019 in W.P. (C)No.17174 of 2017, for the aforesaid reason.
Registry shall list the writ petition before the Bench as per roster.
The interim orders granted in this review petition shall continue to be in force, till the writ petition is listed before the
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
10
Bench as per roster.
Since the judgment sought to be reviewed is recalled, I.A.Nos.1 to 4 of 2020 filed by the 1st respondent/writ
petitioner are closed without prejudice to his right to move such applications in the writ petition.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
AV/5/11
RP.No.1092 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 17174/2017
11
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : NIL
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT NIL DATED IN O.S.NO.18/2020 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
ANNEXURE R1(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1/2020 NIL DATED IN O.S.NO.18/2020 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
ANNEXURE R1(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.1.2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN O.S.NO.18/2020 ANNEXURE R1(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.1.2020 SEEKING TO VACATE THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN O.S.NO.18/2020 ANNEXURE R1(e) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2020 IN CONT.CASE(C) NO.2263/2020 ANNEXURE R1(f) : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE VIDE NO.3/1 DATED 26.5.2020
ANNEXURE R1(g) : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE VIDE NO.1/1 DATED 23.6.2020.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition should be disposed of by recalling the impugned judgment because the 6th respondent in the original writ petition was dead at the time of passing that judgment.
Whether the legal heirs of the deceased 6th respondent need to be impleaded in the review proceedings.
Whether the interim orders regarding the private market need to be continued pending disposal of the matter.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rani Chandra P.S
Sudhakaran Nair
Thirupuram Grama Panchayath
T.Parameswaran Nair
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Circle Inspector of Police
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
