Disposed

Rajesh N. v. L.Kannan

Kerala HC7 Sept 2020RP/601/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition challenging a writ order as infructuous due to non-impleadment of a necessary party, the court held that since the underlying appeal was disposed of prior to the writ filing, no prejudice was caused. The petition was disposed of allowing respondents to proceed without prejudice to the original petitioner's right to challenge the disposal order.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of; respondents allowed to proceed with further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 8 order, without prejudice to the first respondent's right to challenge Annexure 8 order.

Rajesh N. Vs L.Kannan — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

RP 601 OF 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942

¶7

RP.No.601 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 16361/2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16361/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶10

RAJESH N., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN ELAYATH, THAMARAYIL MADAM, PANMANA P.O, CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691 583

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SHRI.NITIN RAJAN NAIR SMT.ANJANA G. SHRI.JOBIN JOSE P. SMT.MEENU THAMPI

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 L.KANNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LEKSHMI NARAYAN POTTY LAKSHMI NIVAS, PUTHEN NADA, THEKKEVILA NAGAR-159 THEKKEVILA P.O, KOLLAM-691 016, (WORKING AS SANTHI PARIMANAM DEVASWAM, KOLLAM GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD)

¶14

2 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NANDANCODE, NANDANCODE .P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 003

¶15

¶16

THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANDANCODE, NANDANCODE .P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 003

¶17

¶18

DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANDANCODE, NANDANCODE .P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 003

¶19

¶20

ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOLLAM – 691 007

¶21

¶22

G.NARAYANAN, SANTHI, KOTTAMKULANGARA DEVASWOM KOLLAM GROUP, KOLLAM 691 007.

¶23

SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR- R1

¶24

SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, STANDING COUNSEL – R2 TO R5

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RP 601 OF 2020

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

¶30

R.P No. 601 of 2020

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2020.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The review petitioner is a third party to WP(C) No.16361/2020.

¶35

The grievance of the review petitioner is that the first respondent had filed WP(C) 16361/2020 without disclosing all the actual facts of the case and without impleading the review petitioner, who was a necessary party to the writ petition.

¶36

According to the review petitioner, the first respondent had filed the writ petition, inter alia, seeking a direction to the third respondent to consider and dispose of Annexure 5 appeal (Ext P3) within a time frame.

¶37

This Court by its judgment dated 11.8.2020 disposed of the writ petition, by directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of Annexure 5 appeal

¶38

¶39

RP 601 OF 2020

¶40

within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was further observed that until a decision is taken on the appeal, Annexure 4 impugned order (Ext P2) to be kept in abeyance.

¶41

It is the specific case of the review petitioner that Annexure-5 appeal was considered and disposed of by the third respondent on 28.7.2020 by Annexure-8, much prior to the filing of the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was infructuous and nothing further survived in it. Nevertheless as the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court, the impugned judgment was passed.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5. In view of the relief that I propose to pass, I dispense with notice to the sixth respondent.

¶43

The learned counsel for the review petitioner reiterated the contentions in the review petition. The learned counsel submitted that if the fact that Annexure 5 appeal was disposed of, at the time of filing the writ petition,

¶44

¶45

RP 601 OF 2020

¶46

was brought to the notice of this Court, the impugned judgment would not have been passed.

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that although Annexure-8 was passed on 28.7.2020, the same was not brought to the notice of the first respondent. It is in the said circumstances that the first respondent preferred the writ petition seeking a direction for an expeditious consideration of Annexure 5.

¶48

Taking into consideration the fact that the third respondent has already considered Annexure-5 appeal and passed Annexure 8 order on 28.7.2020, I do not find any legal impediment in the respondents in proceeding further in the matter because the only direction that was issued in the impugned judgment was to consider the appeal within a time frame and until such time the impugned Annexure-4 order to be kept in abeyance. As the appeal was considered even before passing the judgment, no prejudice is caused to the review petitioner.

¶49

With the above observations, this review petition is

¶50

¶51

RP 601 OF 2020

¶52

disposed of making it clear that the respondents can proceed with the further proceedings pursuant to Annexure8 order, which will be without prejudice to the right of the first respondent to challenge Annexure 8 order, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

SKS/7.9.2020

RP 601 OF 2020

APPENDIX

REVIEW PETITIONERS ANNEXURES

¶61

ANNEXURE 1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 1.3.2017

¶62

ANNEXURE 2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 27.4.2017

¶63

ANNEXURE 3-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED 3.3.2020

¶64

ANNEXURE 4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 9.6.2020

¶65

ANNEXURE 5-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM PREFERRED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 10.6.2020

¶66

ANNEXURE 6-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 24.7.2020

¶67

ANNEXURE 7-TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 15.2.2020

¶68

ANNEXURE 8-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 28.7.2020

Rajesh N. v. L.Kannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh N. v. L.Kannan

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

Shyamkumar P.K. Vs the University of Calicut

Faizal K.v., Vs State of Kerala

Jaz Azeezul Haq Vs State Bank of India

Aflaha P., Vs Sri.a.Shajahan

Patriarch Elias Charitable Society Vs Dr.C.R.Prasad

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs K.N.Sasi