Court dismissed review petition challenging finding in earlier judgment. Judge clarified that earlier order did not declare persons as street vendors, only imposed statutory duty on Corporation to consider claims.
Review petition closed with no change to prior judgment.
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
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941
RP.No.34 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 16138/2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16138/2019(N)
REVIEW PETITIONER:
KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYA EKOPANA SAMITHI THRISSUR DISTRICT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT SECRETARY, SEBASTIAN JOSE, VYAPARA BHAVAN, SAHITHYA ACADEMY ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR6890 020
BY ADVS. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, KURUPPAM, THEKKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR-680 001
3 TOWN VENDING COMMITTEE, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, KURUPPAM, THEKKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR-680 001
SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL-SC, SRI. M.V.ANANDAN-SR.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.34 OF 2020
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking that the judgment of this Court dated 19.06.2019 be reviewed since there is a finding therein that various persons against whom complaints have been made of engaging in illegal vending are street vendors, while in Annexure A1 judgment, delivered in similar circumstances, the finding has been to the contrary.
RP.No.34 OF 2020
3
and says that there is no requirement for the judgment to be reviewed, since his client has understood it to mean that if there is any claim by any person to be a street vendor, the same will be considered appropriately, under the provisions of the applicable Act.
In the afore circumstances, I find no reason why the judgment should be reviewed, particularly because I see no conflict in the directions herein with that of the directions in Annexure A1.
This RP is thus closed.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Stu
RP.No.34 OF 2020
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.6460 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BE COURT DATED 26.09.2019
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the earlier judgment declaring responsibility of rehabilitation on the Corporation amounts to a declaration of status as street vendors requiring review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No.6460 of 2019Referred¶19
Kerala Vyapari Vyavasya Sakhyam Samithi Thrissur District Committee
Local Self Government Department
Corporation of Thrissur
Town Vending Committee
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
