Allowed

Mammen Varghese @ Kunjumon, v. Shajan C. Varghese

Kerala HC27 May 2022RP/4/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed two connected review petitions filed by an elderly petitioner to restore two withdrawn writ petitions. The petitioner claimed lack of understanding due to surgery and frail health when withdrawing a petition that led to directions for demolition of a building in a connected case. The court held that justice required restoration for merits.

What did the court decide?

Review petitions allowed; writ petitions restored to files for hearing on merits or otherwise disposed by 03.06.2022.

Mammen Varghese @ Kunjumon, Vs Shajan… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022

¶2

: 1:

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶7

RP NO. 4 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2021 IN WP(C) 35176/2015 OF HIGH COURT

¶9

OF KERALA

¶10

REVIEW PETITIONER/9TH RESPONDENT:

¶11

MAMMEN VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON, (T.M. VARGHESE),

¶12

THENGONE HOUSE, KOIPURAM P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.

¶13

BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW ARUN THOMAS VEENA RAVEENDRAN KARTHIKA MARIA ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL ABI BENNY AREECKAL LEAH RACHEL NINAN MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8:

¶15

1 SHAJAN C. VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LATE C.C.VARGHESE, CHERIYATHU HOUSE, KOIPURAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.

¶16

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶18

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 2:

¶19

PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645.

¶20

4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 101.

¶21

5 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,

¶22

THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 101.

¶23

6 VILLAGE OFFICER, KOIPURAM,

¶24

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.

¶25

7 KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PULLAD P.O, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 548, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶26

8 THE SECRETARY, KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PULLAD P.O, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 548.

¶27

9 JIJU VARGHESE MAMMEN, S/O.MAMMEN VARGHESE, THENGONE HOUSE, KOIPURAM P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.

¶28

BY ADVS.

¶29

ADV. VENUGOPAL.M.R DHANYA P.ASHOKAN(K/001671/2000)

¶30

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2022, ALONG WITH RP.14/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022

¶32

: 3:

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶36

FRIDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶37

RP NO. 14 OF 2022

¶38

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2021 IN WP(C) 8616/2016 OF HIGH COURT

¶39

OF KERALA

¶40

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶41

MAMMEN VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON (T.M. VARGHESE), THENGONE HOUSE, KOIPURAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 531.

¶42

BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW ARUN THOMAS KARTHIKA MARIA ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL ABI BENNY AREECKAL LEAH RACHEL NINAN MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL

¶43

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶44

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶45

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 645.

¶46

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 101.

¶47

4 TALUK SURVEYOR,

¶48

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 4:

¶49

TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 101.

¶50

5 VILLAGE OFFICER KOIPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 531.

¶51

6 KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PULLAD P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 548, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶52

7 ASSISTANT ENGINEER LSGD, KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PULLAD P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 548.

¶53

8 SHAJAN C. VARGHESE AGED 52 YEARS

¶54

S/O. LATE C.C. VARGHESE, CHERIYATHU HOUSE, KOIPURAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 531.

¶55

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2022, ALONG WITH RP.4/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶56

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 5:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The Review Petitions are filed by the 9^th respondent in W.P.(C)

¶59

No. 35176 of 2015 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8616 of 2016 respectively seeking to review the judgments dated 15.11.2021 and 12.11.2021.

¶60

The Review Petitions are materially connected and therefore,

¶61

I propose to pass a common order on these petitions.

¶62

W.P.(C) No. 8616 of 2016 filed by the Review Petitioner was permitted to withdraw as per the judgment dated 12.11.2021 on the submission of the learned counsel that the Review Petitioner informed him that he is not interested in pursuing the writ petition. Consequent to the withdrawal of the writ petition by the Review Petitioner, W.P.(C) No. 35176 of 2015 was allowed directing the statutory authorities to remove the objectionable building construction carried out by the Review Petitioner and identified by the statutory authorities as per Exts.P4 to P7 and P11 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶63

Now, the Review Petitions are filed basically contending that

¶64

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 6:

¶65

the Review Petitioner has instructed the counsel to withdraw W.P.(C) No. 8616 of 2016 at a time when he was taking rest after a surgery

¶66

and he was not aware of the consequences of the withdrawal of the writ petition due to his old age and frail health.

¶67

Anyhow, based on the directions issued in W.P.(C) No. 35176 of 2015, steps were taken by the statutory authorities for the demolition of the objectionable construction carried out by the Review Petitioner as per the impugned orders. It is at that time Review Petitions are filed.

¶68

The Review Petitions are stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the party respondents.

¶69

I have heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner Sri. Arun Thomas, learned Standing Counsel, the learned Government Pleader, other learned counsel, and Sri. Philip Mathew appeared for

¶70

the party respondents, and perused the pleadings and material on record.

¶71

It is an admitted fact that the judgment was pronounced in W.P.(C) No. 8616 of 2016 on 12.11.2021 on the basis of the

¶72

submission made by the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner/

¶73

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 7:

¶74

writ petitioner that he was instructed to withdraw the writ petition. Records are produced by the Review Petitioner to show that he had undergone a medical procedure and he is aged about 81 years and therefore, he has given instruction to the counsel without understanding the implication consequent to the pendency of the other connected writ petition and the likelihood of the consequences, if directions are issued in the said writ petition for implementing the impugned orders.

¶75

Anyhow, the writ petition filed by the Review Petitioner was not adjudicated on its merit. In view of the circumstances explained above, interest of justice will be met, if the writ petition filed by the Review Petitioner is considered on its merit. The judgment in the other connected writ petition filed by the party respondent was passed as a consequence to the withdrawal of the writ petition by the Review Petitioner.

¶76

In that view of the matter, the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 35176 of 2015 has also to be reviewed. Accordingly, the Review

¶77

Petitions are allowed and the writ petitions are restored to files.

¶78

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 8:

¶79

Post the writ petitions for hearing 03.06.2022.

¶80

Needless to say, the interim order granted to the Review

¶81

Petitioner, when the writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court, would continue to be in operation till a decision is taken by this Court in the writ petitions.

¶82

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶83

¶84

: 9:

¶85

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022

¶86

APPENDIX OF RP 14/2022

¶87

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶88

Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE - SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER. Annexure II TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.10.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COUNSEL. Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 35176/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SECRETARY, KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶89

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022

¶94

: 10:

¶95

APPENDIX OF RP 4/2022

¶96

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶97

Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER. Annexure II TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.10.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COUNSEL. Annexure A111 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 8616/2016 OF THIS HONBLE COURT. Annexure A1V TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 151.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶98

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶99

/True Copy/

¶100

PS To Judge.

¶101

Mammen Varghese @ Kunjumon, v. Shajan C. Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mammen Varghese @ Kunjumon, v. Shajan C. Varghese

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

N.P.Selvaraj Vs Kavitha S. Kumar

Haridas K R Vs Vijayanand

Rukhiya M.C. Vs A.P.M. Muhammed Hanish I.A.S

Mammen Varghese @ Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala

Usha Devarajan Vs Perumbavoor Municipality

S. Venkitachalam Vs Vishnu Nath IAS