Remanded

Sister Remya v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2022RP/342/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition was admitted on the same day of hearing. The Court recalled and reviewed the judgment dated 11.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No.1964/2022 due to a dispute regarding the necessity of revising the application concerning earth removal quantity.

What did the court decide?

The judgment in W.P.(C) No.1964/2022 dated 11.03.2022 is recalled and the matter is posted before an appropriate Bench.

Sister Remya Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

RP NO. 342 OF 2022

¶6

¶7

KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

SISTER REMYA AGED 66 YEARS DAUGHTER OF AUGUSTIN, MOTHER SUPERIOR , ST PAUL'S BETHANY CONVENT, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682311 BY ADVS. P.MOHAMED SABAH SAIPOOJA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, ROOM NO. 264, 2MD FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶12

2 POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, POOTHRIKKA , AIKARNADU SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682308

¶13

3 THE SECRETARY POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, POOTHRIKKA, AIKKARNADU SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682308

¶14

RP NO. 342 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

4 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST ERNAKULAM DISTRICT OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030 BY ADVS. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI. BIMAL K. NATH. SR.GOVT. PLEADER.

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

RP NO. 342 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶21

R. P. No. 342 of 2022 in W. P. (C). No. 1964 of 2022

¶22

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2022

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner seeks review of the judgment. It is submitted

¶25

that this Court had directed the petitioner to approach the 3^rd respondent after making necessary changes in the application regarding the quantity of earth to be removed and according to the petitioner no changes are required as far as the quantity is concerned. It is submitted that the above observation was made on the basis of the submission made by the standing counsel for the Panchayat that only a quantity of about 2500 cubic metres are required to be removed.

¶26

In such circumstances, there appears to be dispute regarding the necessity of making any changes at all in the application. The judgment dated 11.03.2022 in W.P.(C) No.1964/2022 is hence reviewed and recalled. Post the writ petition before the appropriate Bench. Sd/-

¶27

T.R. RAVI JUDGE

¶28

Sister Remya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sister Remya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Base P Mathew Vs the Survey Director

Rajan P., Vs the Tahsildar

Chandrika Amma, Vs the State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs the State of Kerala

Siddik Vs the Special Sale Officer

Sunitha Kumari.B Vs Kattakada Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.