IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP No. 925 of 2006(S)
1. P.T.JOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSE CHEMBERY, S/O. DEVASSIA,
... Respondent
2. THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.IYPE
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
Dated :23/01/2007
O R D E R
(V.K.BALI, C.J & M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)
----------------------------------------------------------------
R.P.No. 925 of 2006
in
W.P.(C).No.24213 of 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2007
O R D E R
Ramachandran, J:
Review Petition is filed at the instance of the 4th
respondent. The writ petition filed by the petitioner/Ist
respondent herein [W.P.(C).No.24213 of 2006] had come up
for admission on 13-09-2006, and taking notice of the
submissions made on behalf of the Government, it had been
disposed of with a direction to the District Collector, Kannur
to take up and dispose of Ext.P4 representation, filed at the
instance of the petitioner in the writ petition, in the light of
Ext.P6 report filed by the Tahsildar. According to the
petitioner herein, Ext.P4 had been listed for hearing on a
number of days, but as the complainant was not present, the
hearing had been completed and the District Collector had
addressed the Government as regards the follow up actions
that are to be taken. According to the petitioner, the
directions in the judgment came to their notice only when
there was a fresh notice issued at the instance of the
[RP No.925 of 2006] -2-
District Collector on the same subject (Annexure-7), and as
this might not have been encouraged, the application for
review of the judgment had been necessitated to be filed.
2. Notice had been issued in respect of the Review
Petition and we had heard the parties. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner had filed another writ petition as W.P.(C).No.451 of
2007 as well. It had been suggested that the two writ
petitions could be taken up and disposed of together.
3. As the directions had been issued by us without
being apprised of the full facts, and this was done without
notice to the affected party (4th respondent), we find that a
prima facie case had been made out for reviewing the
judgment.
The Review Petition is allowed and the judgment dated
13-09-2006 in W.P.(C).No.24213 of 2006 is recalled and set
aside.
V.K.BALI
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
M.RAMACHANDRAN
(JUDGE)
mks/