The Officer In Charge Army Medical vs Rajesh U. on 19 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 558 of 2009()


1. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE  ARMY MEDICAL
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING
3. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF ARMY
4. SECRETARY TO DEFENCE, SANA BHAVAN,
5. UNION OF INDIA REP.BY ITS

                        Vs



1. RAJESH U.,S/O.KUNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, ADDL.CGSC

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/06/2009

 O R D E R
                              S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                          R.P. No. 558 of 2009
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                   Dated this, the 19th June, 2009.

                                O R D E R

The respondents in W.P(C) No. 23502/2008 have filed this

review petition seeking review of my judgment dated 4-9-2008 in the

said writ petition. By that judgment, I directed the 4th respondent to

consider and pass orders on Ext. P9 as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the

judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioner. Now, the petitioners in the review petition submit that

since the writ petition was disposed of at the time of admission, the

question of jurisdiction and as to whether a further appeal would lie

against Ext. P8 order, has not been properly considered by this

Court.

2. I have heard the learned Central Government counsel.

3. From the proceedings , I find that the writ petition originally

came up for admission on 5-8-2008. On that day, the Assistant

Solicitor General was directed to get instructions in the matter. It

came up again on 18-8-2008, on which date, this Court passed the

following order:

“The learned standing counsel for the respondents to
ascertain and submit whether Ext. P9 revision is maintainable
from Ext. P8 order passed by the Chief of the Army Staff.”

The writ petition again came up on 4-9-2008, on which date also no

instructions were forthcoming and the writ petition was heard and

R.P. No. 558/09 -: 2 :-

disposed of. This Court only directed disposal of Ext. P9 without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

4. I do not think that the petitioners in the review petition

have made out a case for review of the judgment as such. If they are

aggrieved by the judgment, their remedy lies in filing an appeal

against that judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[True copy]

P.S to Judge.