Disposed

Arakkanattil Oommen Iype v. Rajamma Joseph

Kerala HC17 Jan 2020WA/44/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the appellant precluded from challenging the underlying judgment due to approbate and reprobate principles upon filing a review petition. Both parties' review petitions were directed to be disposed of within one month.

What did the court decide?

Both review petitions directed to be disposed of within one month; appellant precluded from assailing the underlying judgment.

Arakkanattil Oommen Iype Vs Rajamma Joseph — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 27TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.44 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31302/2019(K) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16.12.2019

¶9

APPELLANT/9TH RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶10

ARAKKANATTIL OOMMEN IYPE

¶11

AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. A.E OOMMEN, ARAKKANATTIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PIRALASSERRY P.O, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OBIN MATHEW GEORGE, AMPIYIL PADINJATTETHIL HOUSE, PARAKODE P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.JEPH JOSEPH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-8 IN WPC:

¶14

1 RAJAMMA JOSEPH AGED 68 YEARS, W/O. P.V JOSEPH, PALAKKALODI VEEDU, EARAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM 686 601

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶16

3 PRINCIPAL, LOCL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶17

W.A.44 /2020

¶18

¶19

4 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶20

5 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 001

¶21

6 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 001

¶22

7 DISTRICT COMMITTEE FOR REGULATRISATION OF UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTIONS, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, KOTTAYAM 686 001

¶23

8 THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM 686 001

¶24

9 KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM 686 001

¶25

10 SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY 686 001 R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOMON J.MALIEKAL (B/O) R2 TO R8 BY SR. GP SURIN GEORGE IPE R9-10 BY SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶27

17.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.44 /2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2020

¶32

S. Manikumar, CJ

¶33

After adjudicating rival contentions in the matter of regularising a construction as per the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularization of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018, a learned Single Judge of this Court at paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 ordered thus:

¶34

“10. Needless to say, the petitioner, if she is so advised, will be at liberty to prefer an appropriate review before the Government invoking Rule 10 of the Rules; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same will also be considered along with the Review Petition filed by the 9th respondent and will be disposed of together, as per the directions above.

¶35

Needless to say, since I have not considered the dialectical contentions of the parties on their merits, both sides are at liberty to prefer and pursue their respective Review applications, impelling all contentions as they may be advised to take, including the question of locus, maintainability and such other; and it will be up to the competent Secretary of the Government to consider all of them carefully and issue appropriate orders thereon, in terms of this judgment.

¶36

W.A.44 /2020

¶37

¶38

After I dictated this judgment, Sri.Philip Mathews, learned counsel for the 9th respondent, prayed that a time limit be fixed for the Government to act in terms of this judgment. I deem it appropriate to accede to this request and therefore, direct that the resultant order, in terms of my afore directions, shall be issued by the competent Authority of the Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the Review Petition to be filed by the petitioner in terms of the liberty granted above.

¶39

This writ petition is thus ordered.”

¶40

On 14.1.2020, when the writ appeal filed by 9^th respondent

¶41

came up for hearing, we recorded as hereunder:

¶42

“ Sri. Jomon J. Maliekal, learned counsel, takes notice for R1. Sri. Siby Chenappady, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for R9 and R10. Sri, Arvindakumar Babu, learned Government Pleader takes notice for R2 to R8.

¶43

Learned Government Pleader is directed to ascertain whether any application filed by the 1^st respondent has been received.

¶44

Post on 17.01.2020.”

¶45

Reverting, Mr. Surin George Ipe, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that review petition filed by the respondent dated

¶46

1.1.2020 has been received on 7.1.2020. The appellant filed review

¶47

W.A.44 /2020

¶48

¶49

petition on 30.12.2019. Both review petitions are posted for hearing on 23.1.2020. Directions of the writ court in W.P(C). No.31302 of 2019 directing the parties to file review petitions before the competent authority has been acted upon. In such circumstances, it is not open to the appellant to assail the correctness of the judgment in W.P(C). No.31302 of 2019 and the same is hit by the principles of aprobate and reprobate.

¶50

In such circumstances, we are not inclined to advert to the correctness of the judgment in W.P(C). No.31302 of 2019. It is open to both parties to raise the tenable contentions before the authority, whom the review petitions are pending. Review petitions are directed to be disposed of at the earliest, but not later than one month.

¶51

Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶52

Sd/Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

¶53

sou.

Arakkanattil Oommen Iype v. Rajamma Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arakkanattil Oommen Iype v. Rajamma Joseph

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

Muhammed Rasheekh Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Thalassery Municipality Vs Kerala State Human Rights Commission

V.N.Gopinathan Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

Vineeth.C, Vs Meenu.S

Omana Vs State of Kerala

Joshna.M Vs Larson Thomas