IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 840 of 2008(Y)
1. AMBALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASHRAF, S/O.KHALID
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
=R.P.=No.= = = = = = = = = = =
= =
840 of 2008
in
=W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = =
No. 10496 OF 2008 Y
= = =
Dated this the 6th day of August 2008
O R D E R
Review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 10496/08 is sought for.
Main grounds raised in this review petition are that the writ petitioner has
an alternate remedy of appeal available and that the issue involves
disputed questions of fact which could not have been decided in a writ
petition. These two grounds are not available to seek review of the
judgment, and reviewed is permissible only if there is an error apparent
on the face of the record.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner then submits that
the finding in the judgment that there was only one chicken stall in the
market in question is incorrect. According to him, even in the previous
years there were two chicken stalls and the proposal of the Panchayat in
Annexure A notice was to auction the additional chicken stall. Counsel
contends that if there was an additional chicken stall in existence in the
previous years there is absolutely no basis for the contention of the
petitioner that there was only one chicken stall.
R.P. No.840/08 in WPC 10496/2008
– 2 –
3. The judgment was rendered referring to Ext. P1 notice
published by the Panchayat which indicated only one chicken stall and it
did not make any reference to any additional chicken stall. Now what is
relied on by the Panchayat in support of its contention is Annexure A,
which of course, mentions yet another chicken stall and the auction of
which has been interfered in the judgment. Even now, apart from making
assertions the Panchayat has not placed any record to prove that there
was an additional chicken stall in existence. Since the Panchayat has
failed to produce any document in support of its plea that there existed
an additional chicken stall, I am not in a position to conclude that the
finding in the judgment that there was only one chicken stall in the
market is erroneous. That apart the finding in this respect cannot be
stated to be vitiated by error, justifying review.
4. I am not satisfied that the review petitioner has made out a
case for review of the judgment.
Review petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-