Roopa P vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 10119 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

              RP.No.178 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 38561/2017

FOR REIVEW OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.05.2019 IN WP(C) 38561/2017(U)
                     OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             ROOPA P, AGED 37 YEARS,
             W/O.HAREENDRAN P., PUTHALATH HOUSE,
             P.O.IRITTY, KANNUR-670 793.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
             SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
             KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
             SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2      THE REGISTRAR,
             DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      3      THE GENERAL MANAGER,
             KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
             IRITTY, KANNUR-670 793.

      4      BIJU, PEON,
             KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
             KANNUR-670 793.

             BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC,
                     KANNUR DISTRICT CO.OP. BANK
                     SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL - SR.GP

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION          ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.178/2021 IN WP(C)No.38561/2017

                                 -2-

                               ORDER

Dated this the 25th day of March 2021

This Review Petition has been filed by the

petitioner seeking that the judgment, dated

28.05.2019 in W.P.(C)No.38561 of 2017, of this

Court be reviewed, since the submission made on

behalf of the Kannur District Co-operative Bank,

that the 4th respondent in the writ petition -

Sri.Biju, had never been appointed in their

services is incorrect. The petitioner has produced

Annexures I and II in substantiation of her plea

and thus pray that this matter be reconsidered by

this Court on its merits.

2. Sri.M.Saseendran - the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent Bank, submitted that

the 4th respondent in the writ petition was not

appointed substantially, but engaged on daily wage

basis. He added that his submission before this

Court, that Sri.Biju never appointed, was made so RP.No.178/2021 IN WP(C)No.38561/2017

as to mean that his engagement was never

substantial.

3. Even when I hear Sri.M.Saseendran on the

afore lines, the fact remains that this Court

proceeded on the impression that 4th respondent in

the writ petition was never engaged or appointed

by the Bank at any point of time.

Obviously, this does not appear to be

correct; and I, therefore, deem it appropriate to

allow this Review Petition and to recall the

judgment. It is so ordered.

Registry is directed to post the writ

petition as per roster.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv RP.No.178/2021 IN WP(C)No.38561/2017

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION DATED 30.12.2020.

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2019 WITH TYPED COPY.

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE LIST BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 17.02.21 BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE