N.C.Abdul Azeez vs Dr.N.M.Abdul Majeed
2021 Latest Caselaw 14932 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                            RP NO. 425 OF 2021
         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22907/2020 DATED 27.10.2020


REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT:

              N.C.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. N. C. KOYAKUTTY HAJI,
              N. C. HOUSE, THIRUVANOOR NADA P. O.,
              KOZHIKODE - 673029.

              BY ADVS.
              MATHEWS K. UTHUPPACHAN
              TERRY V.JAMES
              SHARAN SHAHIER


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 AND 5:

     1        DR.N.M.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 67 YEARS
              S/O. N. M . MOHAMMED HAJI, MELEPATT HOUSE,
              MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE - 673602.

     2        STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
              TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

     3        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
              OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

     4        HAJI N. C., KOYAKUTTY HAJI MEMORIAL A. U. P. SCHOOL,
              KARASSERY P. O., MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 602,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

     5        THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, VIP ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN
              - 682017, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
 RP 425/21
                                   2



            BY ADVS.
            SRI. T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY - SC
            SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP


      THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP 425/21
                                         3



                              O R D E R

This petition, seeking review of the judgment

of this Court in W.P(C)No.22907/2020 dated

27.10.2020, has been filed with a primary

assertion that the writ petitioner has approached

this Court with gross malafides and with an intent

to reopen matters, which have already been

settled.

2. Sri.Sharan Shahier - learned counsel for

the review petitioner, submitted that, though his

client was arrayed as a respondent in the Writ

Petition, this Court had disposed it of at the

stage of admission presumably because, petitioner

made a seemingly innocuous request that his

representation, namely Ext.P16, be disposed of.

He, however, submitted that by doing so,

petitioner is now trying to reopen the issues

which have already been settled.

3. When I hear the learned counsel for the RP 425/21

review petitioner as afore, the fact remains that

this Court had directed the competent Secretary of

the Government to dispose of the writ petitioner's

representation, after affording an opportunity of

being heard to all affected parties, including the

petitioner herein. The Review petitioner also

accedes that he has been given notice by the

Government, offering him such opportunity.

4. Therefore, the only issue which is now

impelled before me is whether the writ

petitioner/1st respondent is attempting to reopen

the aspects which have already been considered and

closed.

5. I am, therefore, of the view that it will

not be necessary for this Court to review the

judgment, but that it will be sufficient to

clarify that contention of the review petitioner -

that the writ petitioner/1st respondent is

attempting to unsettle the closed matters - will

also be specifically adverted to by the Authority, RP 425/21

while the exercise as ordered by this Court is

completed. It is so ordered.

At this time, Kum.Anagha Lakshmy Raman -

learned counsel appearing for the writ

petitioner/1st respondent, submitted that the afore

observations may not be misunderstood by the

Government to mean that this Court has entered any

opinion about the internecine disputes between the

parties.

It is needless to say that this Court has not

entered into the merits of any of the dialectical

contentions of the parties and that all of them

are left open to be decided appropriately;

however, that the afore contention of the review

petitioner be also considered when it is so done.

This Review Petition is thus closed with the

afore clarification.

Sd/-

RR                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                 JUDGE
 RP 425/21


                 APPENDIX OF RP 425/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE:

Annexure A         A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
                   08.06.2017 IN WPC 18930/2017.

Annexure B         A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.GEDN-

F2/164/2020-G.EDN. DATED 27.03.2021.

Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER.