Said Muhammed Nizarudhin vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 8347 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

           FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

                       RP.No.1018 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 24015/2019

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24015/2019(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

                 SAID MUHAMMED NIZARUDHIN
                 AGED 62 YEARS
                 S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT SHALIMAR VILLA,
                 ANDOORKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 584.

                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
                 SRI.MANI GOVINDA MARAR

RESPONDENT/S:

       1         UNION OF INDIA
                 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
                 SOUTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

       2         THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
                 REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

                 R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

OTHER PRESENT:

                 CGC SMT. KRISHNA

      THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P. No.1018/2020 in W.P.(C) No.24015/2019
                                      -2-




                                ORDER

Dated this the 12th day of March 2021

Heard Advocate B.Premnath and Advocate Krishna for the

parties.

2. The Review Petition when taken up for hearing Adv.

Krishna places on record memo dated 10.03.2021 together with

communication dated 14.11.2019, said to have been sent to the

petitioner.

3. Adv. B Premnath informs the Court that the

communication dated 14.11.2019 was not received by his client,

till the communication is served through the memo dated

10.03.2021 and such contention is probabilised by the very fact

that the petitioner sent Annexure I representation dated

05.12.2019 on the same issue to the Joint Secretary (Gulf).

According to him, the petitioner could be stated to have R.P. No.1018/2020 in W.P.(C) No.24015/2019

received the said communication only when it is served through

the instant memo on the counsel.

4. The statement is placed on record. The petitioner is

given liberty to workout the remedies available against

communication dated 14.11.2019 in accordance with law. The

acknowledgment of communication dated 14.11.2019 is treated

as made through the instant memo. The petitioner is entitled

to workout the remedies without an objection of limitation.

However, the respondents choose to raise such objection, it is

for them to prove that the copy was contemporaneously

communicated to the petitioner under an acknowledgment.

Review Petition dismissed with the above observation.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

jjj R.P. No.1018/2020 in W.P.(C) No.24015/2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JOINT SECRETARY (GULF), GULF DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA DATED 05/12/2019.