Loading...
Responsive image

M.P.Paily vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
M.P.Paily vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 483 of 2010(C)


1. M.P.PAILY, MUNDAYIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.BABU THOMAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :09/06/2010

 O R D E R
                       T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            R.P. No.483/2010 in W.P.(C) No.19670/2009
                    - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010.

                                  JUDGMENT

This review petition is filed by the writ petitioner on various grounds.

It is pointed out that certain observations made in the judgment, were not

necessary for the disposal of the case. What is objectionable, according to

the petitioner, is that this Court in para 3 of the judgment, recorded that the

department has initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner

also. The other grievance is that in para 4, it is recorded that “if the

petitioner has caused loss in respect of any other work, it is upto the

respondents to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law.”

2. Evidently, these aspects have been stated by the respondents in

their counter affidavit filed on 5.11.2009. What is mentioned in para 5 of

the counter affidavit is that the department has initiated recovery

proceedings against the persons who made such a huge loss to the

department. Ext.R2(a) is the show cause notice, wherein it is mentioned

that the department has decided to take appropriate penal action against the

petitioner to make good the loss sustained to the Government.

3. I have only recorded the above statement of facts in the judgment.

rp 483/2010 2

As apprehended by the review petitioner, it is not a direction to take

revenue recovery proceedings. Therefore, there cannot be any grievance

regarding that. The same yardstick will apply as far as the observations in

para 4 of the judgment also. It is not a case where this Court directed that

respondents can proceed against the petitioner to recoup the loss. What was

mentioned only is that if the petitioner has caused any loss, the respondents

can proceed against him in accordance with law.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any apparent error in the

judgment which calls for a review. Therefore, the review petition is

dismissed.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information