Allowed

Village Officer v. Gem Farm

Kerala HC19 Jan 2022RP/27/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition sought to correct the record of an earlier judgment which erroneously indicated that the learned Government Pleader had conceded the validity of a licence. The Court allowed the petition to clarify that the statement was a record of submissions and not a concession on merits.

What did the court decide?

Clarification that the word 'valid' in the judgment refers to the submission of the writ petitioner and not a concession by the Government Pleader.

Village Officer Vs Gem Farm — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 29TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 27 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7124/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 VILLAGE OFFICER AYYANKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ANGADIKKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 706.

¶9

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

¶10

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.S.KANNAN -SR GP

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 M/s.GEM FARM EDOOR, PAAYAM POST, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 704, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE SECRETARY AYYAMKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ANGADIKKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 706. 3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KANNUR - 670 002.

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

RP NO.27/2022 IN WP(C)7124/2020

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition, seeking review of the judgment

¶18

dated 03.12.2021, has been filed by the Village

¶19

Officer and others saying that even though the

¶20

writ petitioner has obtained a licence from the

¶21

Panchayat, the record in the judgment that the learned Government Pleader agreed that this was valid, is in error.

¶22

2. Shri.S.Kannan, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that though the factum of

¶23

issuance of a licence to the writ petitioner/1st respondent is not disputed, there are proceedings initiated against them under various other applicable Rules and Regulations and therefore, that the record in the judgment that a concession was made that the licence is valid, may cause irreparable prejudice to his clients.

¶24

I must say that I find substantial force in

¶25

the submissions of the learned Senior Government

¶26

¶27

¶28

Pleader because this Court had not entered into the merits or validity of the licence stated to have been issued to the petitioner and I only recorded the submissions made at the Bar by the writ petitioner.

¶29

The question whether the licence is valid

¶30

or otherwise certainly could not have been considered by this Court at that time.

¶31

Resultantly, I allow this review petition to the limited extent of clarifying that the word

¶32

'valid' in the judgment in reference to the licence issued to the writ petitioner, will

¶33

construe to have been recorded based on the submission of the writ petitioner and not as a concession of the learned Government Pleader.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

MC/19.1

Village Officer v. Gem Farm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Village Officer v. Gem Farm

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

K.V. Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Rajamani Vs the Tahsildar

Sharafudeen Vs the Special Tahsildar

Manoj Mavunkal Vs Tahsildar (Land Records)

Muhammed Asharaf Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Dr.P.S.Thaha Vs District Collector, Thiruvananhapuram