Kumarapuram Grama Panchayath vs Renjith V
2021 Latest Caselaw 17659 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 5TH BHADRA, 1943
                         RP NO. 514 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15016/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                                ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT:

            KUMARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            KUMARAPURAM P.O., DANAPADY ROAD, HARIPAD P.O., HARIPAD,
            ALAPPUZHA 690 548, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

            BY ADV M.R.SUDHEENDRAN



RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE WP(C):

    1       RENJITH V
            AGED 35 YEARS
            S/O. VIJAYAPPAN, KUTTIVELIKATTIL HOUSE, THAMALLAKKAL
            NORTH KAATTIL MARKET POST HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA-690 548.

    2       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
            SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    3       DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE
            THE DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    4       THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER
            DISTRICT ICDS CELL, PROGRAMME OFFICE, IRON BRIDGE, P.O
            ALAPPUZHA 688 011.

    5       ICDS PROJECT OFFICER
            MADHAVA JUNCTION HARIPPAD P.O., HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA-690
            550.

            BY ADV
            Sri.Hanilkumar,GP
     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING      COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
27.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO.514/2021 IN W.P(C)NO.15016/20
                                 2

                            ORDER

This petition, seeking review of the judgment

of this Court dated 15/03/2021, has been filed by

the Kumarapuram Grama Panchayat asserting that the

record therein to the effect that they had not

appeared in spite of acceptance of notice from this

Court is incorrect. They, however, submit that they

are not aggrieved by the directions in the judgment;

and they thus pray that the record of their absence

in the judgment may be expunged.

2. I have heard Shri.M.R.Sudheendran, learned

counsel appearing for the review petitioner; but I

am afraid that I cannot find favour with the

submissions as afore because the files of this case

clearly show that the summons issued to the 5th

respondent in the writ petition - which is the

review petitioner herein - had been accepted and

that the acknowledgment card had been received by

this Court. Obviously, therefore, their assertion

that they have not received notice from this Court RP NO.514/2021 IN W.P(C)NO.15016/20

cannot be accepted in any manner.

3. That said, even if the review petitioner had

been present, the directions in the judgment would

not have be different; and am, therefore, certain

that the petitioner has no reason to feel aggrieved.

Resultantly, this review petition is closed;

however clarifying that the judgment sought to be

reviewed was not delivered merely because the review

petitioner had been absent when it was decided.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/31.8 RP NO.514/2021 IN W.P(C)NO.15016/20

APPENDIX OF RP 514/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.3.2021 IN WPC 15016/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT REGISTER DATED 28.6.2021.