Kerala High Court
Kerala State Financial ... vs Kerala State Financial ... on 3 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942
RP.No.275 OF 2017(H) IN WP(C). 38676/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2017 IN WPC 38676/2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 IN W.P.(C) NO. 38676/2016:
1 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, REGISTERED
OFFICE,'BHADRATHA', P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU,
THRISSUR-20.
2 THE MANAGER
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,KOLENCHERY
BRANCH, KOLENCHERY P.O., PIN-682 311.
BY ADVS.
SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.
SHRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 7 IN THE WRIT
PETITION:
1 SIMI K.S
W/O. LATE C.N.SURENDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, CHALIL
EAST,KADAYIRIPPU P.O., PIN-682 311.
2 ATHIRA S.NAIR
D/O. LATE C.N.SURENDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS, CHALIL
EAST,KADAYIRIPPU P.O., PIN-682 311.
3 ARJUN S.NAIR
S/O. LATE C.N.SURENDRAN, AGED 20 YEARS, CHALIL
EAST,KADAYIRIPPU P.O., PIN-682 311.
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL
STATION,THRIKKAKARA-682 030.
R.P. No. 275/2017 :2:
in W.P.(C) No. 38676/2016
6 THE TAHSILDAR
KUNNATHUNDU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
PERUMBAVOOR,PERUMBAVOOR P.O.-683 542.
7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE,KADAYIRIPPU
P.O., PIN-682 311.
8 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, PUTHENCRUZ P.O.-682 308.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. No. 275/2017 :3:
in W.P.(C) No. 38676/2016
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2021.
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed by respondents 5 and 6 in the writ
petition seeking to review the judgment dated 03.01.2017 in W.P.(C)
No. 38676 of 2016 partially by incorporating the amount actually due
to the Review Petitioners from the writ petitioners.
2. It is submitted that at the time of disposal of the writ petition,
according to the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel,
the amount due was recorded as Rs.7,54,494/-. However, according
to the learned counsel for the Review Petitioners, the actual amount
due as on 14.02.2016 was Rs.57,62,925/-. According to the learned
counsel for the review petitioners, it was on the basis of an incorrect
submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, the said error has
occurred, which is an error apparent on the face of the record.
3. It is also pointed out that unless and until the said
observations contained in the judgment is removed, it will seriously
and prejudicially affect the first Review Petitioner, a Government
owned company.
4. In that view of the matter and having heard the learned counsel for
the Review Petitioners and the writ petitioners, I think it is only
in W.P.(C) No. 38676/2016
appropriate that correction is made in accordance with the submission
made in the Review Petition. Accordingly, the figure 'Rs.7,54,494/-'
mentioned in the judgment dated 03.01.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 38676 of
2016 is replaced by 'Rs.57,62,925/-'. Review Petition is allowed to
that extent alone.
However, I make it clear that I have not adjudicated the issue
with respect to the amounts due from the writ petitioners to the
Review Petitioners and the writ petitioners are at liberty to seek
adjudication of the amounts, if they are advised so.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv
