In review of WP(C) 27195/2017, the Court allowed the review petition recalling the judgment. The petitioner challenging an RTC notification argued the earlier decision erred in holding his petition was not for GO benefits; Court agreed and recalled the judgment.
Review petition allowed; judgment in W.P.(C) 27195/2017 recalled; writ petition listed for hearing.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA,
1943
RP NO. 518 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27195/2017 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
T.D. SANTHOSH, AGED 57 YEARS THOPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE,THATHAPPILLY P.O., NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-695001.
BY ADV K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695001.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. B.VINITHA
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
..2..
R.P.No.518 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.27195 of 2017
Review Petition No.518 of 2021
in
W.P.(C) No.27195 of 2017
O R D E R
Petitioner was running a ration retail dealership on temporary basis from 04.11.2013. He was running the dealership on that basis till 08.11.2017 with intermittent renewals. Later, the petitioner applied for licence to run the dealership on permanent basis. While the said application was pending, Ext.P3 notification was issued by the second respondent for allotment of the said dealership to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes. Ext.P3 notification was under challenge in the writ petition. The writ petition was however dismissed in terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed on the premise that the petitioner was claiming only the benefit of Ext.P7 Government Order and that the same does not apply to him. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment on the ground that the writ petition was not one claiming the benefit of Ext.P7 order. According to the petitioner, the judgment
R.P.No.518 of 2021 ..3.. in W.P.(C) No.27195 of 2017
dismissing the writ petition, in the circumstances, is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.
petition was one instituted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 notification. It was not a writ petition claiming the benefit of Ext.P7 Government Order. In the said view of the matter, I am in agreement with the case set out by the petitioner that the judgment sought to be reviewed is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.
In the result, the review petition is allowed and the judgment sought to be reviewed is recalled. List the writ petition for hearing.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
ds 29.09.2021
..4..
R.P.No.518 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.27195 of 2017
APPENDIX OF RP 518/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COOPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WPC NO.27195/2017, DATED 28/10/19.
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.01.20.
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE QUERY, UNDER RTI ACT, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 07.12.20.
Annexure 4
TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED TO THE PETITIONR FOR THE QUERY, UNDER RTI ACT, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES, COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 19.07.21.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record?
T.D. SANTHOSH
STATE OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD
THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER NORTH PARAVUR
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
