Sindhu Lal vs Sasankan
2021 Latest Caselaw 13782 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
        FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
                           RP NO. 241 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29190/2020 DATED 29.12.2020 OF HIGH
                            COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

           SINDHU LAL
           AGED 53 YEARS
           D/O. SARADHA, SREELEKSHMI, CHEPAZHANTHY P.O,
           ULIYAZHATHURA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 587

           BY ADV A.S.SHAMMY RAJ



RESPONDENT/S:

    1      SASANKAN
           AGED 56 YEARS
           S/O. K. GANGADHARAN, THADATHARILKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU,
           THAPASANGIRI, KALLARA P.O, NEDUMANGAD THALUK,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 608

    2      STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
           VAZHUTHACADU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010

    3      THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
           DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PMG
           JUNCTION P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 033

    4      THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
           PANGODE POLICE STATION, PANGODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
           DISTRICT 695 609

    5      SUDHAKARAN,
           AGED 69 YEARS
           S/O. NADESAN, PLAVILA VEEDU, THUMBODE, KANDAMOM,
           KALLARA P.O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 608

    6      NAAR
           AGED 53 YEARS
           S/O. ABDUL RAHUMAN, RAMSI MANZIL, THAPASAGIRI, KALLARA
 RP NO. 241 OF 2021
                               2

          P.O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 608




          R2 TO 4 - SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SENIOR GOVERNMENT
          PLEADER



THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 241 OF 2021
                                       3

                                    JUDGMENT

This review petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to review the

judgment dated 29.12.2020. The review petitioner is the 5 th respondent in the

writ petition. In fact, the following were the reliefs sought for in the writ

petition.

"i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to ensure adequate and effective protection to the petitioners for doing his banana business in the shop room of the petitioner and peaceful living of the petitioner.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2 nd and 3rd respondents to consider and dispose of Exhibit P5 & Exhibit P6 representations forthwith.

iii) To issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. All the reliefs sought for in the writ petition were declined by this

Court holding that a Civil Suit is pending consideration before a competent

Civil Court by and between the writ petitioner as well as the review petitioner.

However, when it was pointed out that there is a chance of forcible eviction

from the building in question occupied by the writ petitioner, I had made a RP NO. 241 OF 2021

direction to respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition, i.e., the Superintendent

of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and the S.I of Police, Pangode Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram, to ensure that law and order situation is maintained.

Now, the review petition is filed by the 5 th respondent contending that,

Exhibit P1 licence produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition is a

photocopy of a forged document and therefore, the judgment is to be

reviewed. In my considered opinion, a review petition is entertained by the

Court when there is error apparent on the face of the record or any other

illegality. This is a case where the reliefs sought for in the writ petition were

declined, however, for the sake of public good and to maintain peace in

public, when it was pointed out that there is a chance of law and order

situation, this Court in larger public interest, directed the police officials to

ensure law and order situation in the area in question. The grounds raised on

the basis of a photocopy of an alleged forged document, the judgment in

which the reliefs were declined, cannot be reviewed. If the review petitioner

has any case that Exhibit P1 document produced before this Court is a forged

one, it is for the review petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance

with law. Needless to say, the review petitioner has not made out any case of

error apparent on the face of the record or any other illegality, justifying this

Court to review the judgment.

3. Even though learned Counsel for the review petitioner submitted that RP NO. 241 OF 2021

there is violation of principles of natural justice, since the 5 th respondent was

not heard before the writ petition was disposed of, I do not think the

principles of natural justice would come into play when the reliefs sought for

in the writ petition were declined.

The Review Petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

uu 02.07.2021 RP NO. 241 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF RP 241/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1-1-2021 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5-1-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.