IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1870 of 2010()
1. R.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, HEAD SURVEYOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
3. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY & LAND RECORDS
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :08/11/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No.1870 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The appellant who was the writ petitioner approached
this Court with the following prayers:
“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
writ or order calling records.
(ii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
writ or order declaring that the petitioner is entitled to
revaluation of answer sheets in the subject “Boundary disputes
and allied Matters” , Part of head surveyors.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order
or direction directing the 2nd respondent to produce the answer
sheet of the petitioner in the subject “Boundary disputes and
allied Matters”, of the head surveyors test Part B.
(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order
or direction directing the respondents to revalue the answer
sheet of the petitioner in “Boundary disputes and allied
Matters”, of the head surveyors test Part B by a panel of experts
that may be called from the 3rd respondent and appointed by this
Hon’ble Court.”
W.A.No.1870 of 2010
– 2 –
2. The main grievance as projected in the writ petition
appears that by virtue of the decision already taken by the Public
Service Commission to effect the revaluation of the concerned
answer papers, as borne by Ext.P5 judgment, the appellant also
intended to obtain similar benefit to have the answer paper revalued
in respect of the concerned Departmental Examination; which
accordingly was sought for and the prayer was granted by the
learned Single Judge, in terms of Ext.P5. Subsequently, finding
that the concerned paper which was sought to be revalued happened
to be mentioned wrongly in the writ petition, a review petition was
filed seeking to effect the requisite change in the relief portion,
referring to the concerned paper. The Public Service Commission
filed counter affidavit pointing out that there was clear suppression
of material facts, in so far as the writ petitioner had not appeared
for the Head Surveyor’s Test and the actual paper which was
sought to be revalued was in respect of Paper I of First Grade
Surveyor’s Test. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that
W.A.No.1870 of 2010
– 3 –
the writ petitioner had earlier applied for ‘rechecking’ of the answer
paper and after rechecking, the Commission had found that there
was no change in the marks obtained by him and it was duly
communicated.
3. After hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge
observed that there was suppression of material facts from the part
of the review petitioner and accordingly, the judgment was recalled
and the writ petition was dismissed. So also, the review petition was
dismissed with costs of `25000/- which is sought to be intercepted
in this writ appeal.
4. Going by the materials on record, particularly the
pleadings and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the appellant, the appellant/writ petitioner was never benefited
because of the relif sought for and obtained with reference to the
paper as given in the writ petition. It is stated that the appellant was
under the bona fide impression that the decision taken by the Public
Service Commission to have the answer papers revalued was equally
W.A.No.1870 of 2010
– 4 –
applicable to the case of the appellant as well; more so in view of
the fact that a reference has been made in Exts.P3 and P4 to the
Firstk, Grade Surveyor’s Test as well as Head Surveyor’s Test
simultaneously. The learned counsel submits that the appellant/writ
petitioner happened to seek for the benefit of Ext.P5 in such
circumstances and on realising the mistake as to the concerned
paper, review petition was filed. Learned counsel further submits
that the appellant was in no manner benefited because of the mistake
committed, which in turn was sought to be corrected by filing the
review petition.
5. After hearing both the sides, we find that there was
some confusion, atleast in the mind of the writ petitioner/appellant,
who cannot be held benefited in any manner because of the prayer
sought for and extended to him with reference to Ext.P5. In the
said circumstances, we find that the imposition of costs on the
review petitioner/appellant is not warranted. Accordingly, we delete
the same; while sustaining the judgment of the learned Single Judge
W.A.No.1870 of 2010
– 5 –
in the writ petition as well as in the review petition, dismissing
both.
Writ appeal is disposed of as above.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge
vns