Dismissed

Chanthu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2022RP/116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Review Petitioner challenged a judgment ordering the constitution of a committee to supervise dewatering, contending the Padasekhara Samithi could not effectively represent actual cultivators. The Bench held the Samithi represented enough cultivators to serve the purpose and dismissed the review without judgment review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; no further representation of cultivators required in the committee.

Chanthu Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 116 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2021 IN WP(C) 24586/2020 OF HIGH

¶7

COURT OF KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

CHANTHU, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.MINNIYAN, MANJADI PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELLANAM P.O., MARUVAKKAD, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682 008.

¶10

BY ADVS. LIJU.V.STEPHEN INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶14

3 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030.

¶15

4 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.

¶16

5 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT COCHIN - 582 001.

¶17

6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHELLANAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 008.

¶18

R.P.No.116/2022

¶19

¶20

7 MARUVAKKAD PADASEKHARA KARSHAKA UNION, REG.NO.ER/75, CHELLANAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY K.J.JACOB, S/O.JOSEPH, KAITHAVALAPPIL (H), CHELLANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 008.

¶21

ADDL.8 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030

¶22

SRI.S.RENJITH, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO AAG SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR) SRI.S.SUJIN

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.P.No.116/2022

ORDER

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2022

¶28

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24586 of 2020 dated 22.10.2021 is the review petitioner.

¶29

The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 22.10.2021, inter alia ordering Constitution of a Committee to supervise dewatering process in the Padasekharam concerned. The Committee was to consist of Advocate Commissioner, Agricultural Officer, Superintending Engineer (Minor Irrigation), Fisheries Extension Officer, Circle Inspector of Police and the President of Maruvakkad Padasekhara Karshaka Union. The review petitioner submits that the representatives of the cultivating farmers are not included in the Committee and it is highly necessary that atleast one representative of the actual Pokkali cultivators should be

R.P.No.116/2022

included.

The learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out that from the judgment of this Court, it is evident that the Padasekhara Samithi was not interested in promoting Pokkali paddy cultivation. There is no point in including the said Committee. The real representatives of cultivators should be included.

¶34

The learned counsel for the Padasekhara Samithi submitted that out of 271 cultivators in the area, more than 250 cultivators are members of Padasekhara Samithi. Therefore, the Padasekhara Samithi can rightly represent the paddy cultivators in the area and no other representative need be included in the Samithi.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 7^th respondent and the Advocate Commissioner.

¶36

In view of the fact that the Padasekhara Samithi is

¶37

R.P.No.116/2022

¶38

¶39

representing a large number of cultivators in the area, this Court is of the view that no further representative of cultivators is required in the Committee. However, it is made clear that in case the Padasekhara Samithi is not properly co-operating with the functioning of the Committee constituted by this Court, it will be open to the Committee to seek orders of this Court to nominate another representative of cultivators.

¶40

This Court finds that no review of judgment is required at this stage. The review petition is therefore dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶42

Chanthu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanthu v. State of Kerala

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

Sibi N.K Vs Superintending Engineer

Sureshkumar Anandavallyamma Ravindran Nair, Vs Union of India

Ashtami Reghunath Vs the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs

B.V.G. India Limited Vs State of Kerala

R.Shaji Vs the Branch Manager, P.B. Branch,State Bank of India

P.v.Suresh Vs the Hotel & Restaurants Approval and Classification Committee (Hracc)