Review petitioner contended impossibility of compliance due to non-impleadment of Government parties. Court held new grounds not sufficient to recall judgment intended for appeal and dismissed review.
Review petition dismissed; judgment recalled.
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 V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944
RP NO. 543 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32081/2014 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,LSGD DIVISION KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
RESPONDENT/S:
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.543 of 2022
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2022
The review petition is filed contending that there is an apparent error in the judgment, insofar as the direction is to the first review petitioner, Executive Engineer, LSGD, who is now empowered to sanction and disburse the amount due to the writ petitioner.
contended that the work in question was executed as part of the 12th Five Year Plan is sanctioned by the Government. The funds for the project is sanctioned by the Government and disbursed through the District Panchayat. It is contended that insofar as neither the Government nor the
District Panchayat is made party to the writ
petition, it is impossible for the first review petitioner to comply with the direction.
R.P.No.543 of 2022
either side, I find substantial merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. The review petitioner having failed
to raise the contention regarding nonimpleadment of necessary parties in the writ petition and the tender having been invited and
agreement executed by the first review petitioner, the grounds now urged are not sufficient to compel this Court to recall the
R.P.No.543 of 2022
judgment. If at all, those are grounds to be urged in a duly constituted appeal.
In that view of the matter, the review
petition is liable to be dismissed. Ordered
accordingly.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/13.10.2022
R.P.No.543 of 2022
-5-
APPENDIX OF RP 543/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TENDER NOTICE FOR EXECUTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK OF IRRIGATION SHUTTER WORK AS PART OF FIVE YEAR PLAN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-17 Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY GRANTING FINANCIAL SANCTION TO THE PROJECT DATED 06-02-2013 Annexure3 TRUE COPY OF DETAILED PROJECT Annexure4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16-11-2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether new contentions regarding non-impleadment of necessary parties can compel the Court to recall its judgment in a review petition.
If grounds for recall were not raised in the original writ petition, are they sufficient to warrant quashing the judgment.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD DIVISION, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM
C V RADHAKRISHNAN
V.G. ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
