IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2161 of 2009()
1. P.K.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
4. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE,
5. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :06/10/2009
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 2161 OF 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The petitioner
challenged Exts.P7 and P9 orders passed by the Vigilance Tribunal and the
Government respectively. The issue pertains to the proceedings initiated
against the petitioner by the Vigilance Department on the recommendation
of the Tribunal and as per Ext.P9, the Government passed an order
reducing the rank of the petitioner for a period of three years. The learned
Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, mainly holding that this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be justified in
interfering with the findings of fact. It was also observed that merely for
the reason that another view also is possible, exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.
2. When the appeal came up before us, it was pointed out that the
appellant/petitioner has a remedy of review, as provided under Rule 35 of
the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal )Rules.
Learned counsel for the appellant, on instruction, submits that the
W.A.NO. 2161/2009 2
appellant had in fact pursued the said remedy and the review petition was
dismissed on 30.5.2009. That order is not under challenge. Being a
statutory review, that order has become final and unless that order is
challenged, the appellant/petitioner will not get any effective relief, even if
he is entitled to any relief. Faced with such circumstances, learned
counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the Writ Petition
with liberty to file a proper petition, incorporating all the pleadings.
Though ordinarily, at the appellate stage we may not permit withdrawal of
a petition, in view of the mistake of fact referred to above, we feel that in
the interest of justice, liberty should be given to the appellant/petitioner to
withdraw the Writ Petition.
Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge
and dismiss the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal with liberty to the
appellant/petitioner to file a fresh petition, incorporating all the pleadings.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
W.A.NO. 2161/2009 3
KURIAN JOSEPH
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
W.A. NO.2161/2009
JUDGMENT
6th October, 2009