Kerala High Court
Capt. Pedro Guilherme Da Veiga ... vs Union Of India on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
RP NO. 785 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12911/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
CAPT. PEDRO GUILHERME DA VEIGA PEREIRA E OLIVEIRA
ARTILHEIRO,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.MR.DARIO JOSE DE OLIVEIRA ARTILHEIRO, RUA DOS
MORANGOS, NO.129, 2890-555, ALCOCHETE, PORTUGAL NOW AT
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
AYSHA ABRAHAM
YESHWANTH SHENOY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
SOUTH BLOCK, RAISINA HILLS, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION,
THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, OPP.SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT,
AURBINDO MARG, NEW DELHI-110 003.
3 BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY,
THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, A WING, I-III FLOOR,
JANPATH BHAWAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110 001.
4 DY.CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN, OOLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.
5 INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS CEO & WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR, MR.RONOJOY
DUTTA, CENTRAL WING, GROUND FLOOR, THAPAR HOUSE, 124,
JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110 001.
6 CAE SIMULTATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, MR.VIKAS KURMA, SURVEY NO.26 &
RP NO. 785/2021 in
W.P.(C)No.12911/2021
2
27, 3RD FLOOR, BANDARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UGANAVADI POST, DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE-562 110.
SR.ADV.SRI.ARUN KUMAR FOR R6,
SRI.KURIAKOSE VARGHESE FOR R5,
SMT.DAYA SINDHU SREEHARI, CGC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 785/2021 in
W.P.(C)No.12911/2021
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------
R.P.No.785 of 2021
in
W.P.(C)No.12911 of 2021
--------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of November 2021
ORDER
The above Review Petition is filed to
review the judgment dated 29.09.2021 in W.P.
(C)No.12911 of 2021. This Court issued the
following directions in this judgment:
"1. The petitioner is free to
visit India for a period of one week
to take his belongings from the
apartment situated at Kochi. After
reserving the flight tickets, the
petitioner shall inform the 6th
respondent and the Foreigners Regional
Registration Office (FRRO) about the
date of his arrival and departure.
2. All other contentions raised
in this writ petition are left open
and the petitioner is free to approach
the appropriate authorities in
accordance to law. The petitioner is
free to submit appropriate
RP NO. 785/2021 in
W.P.(C)No.12911/2021
representation for that purpose before
the appropriate authority and the
appropriate authority will do the
needful in accordance to law."
2. The Review petitioner submitted that a
huge amount is due from the respondents to the
petitioner and he has no money to go back to
his native place and therefore, the time fixed
by this Court to visit India may be extended.
The counsel also argued on merit.
3. I perused the memorandum of review
petition and also heard the learned counsel
for the review petitioner. When the writ
petition came up for consideration, the
counsel for the petitioner limited his prayer
for a visit to India for a short period to
take his belongings from his apartment. This
Court specifically stated in the judgment that
the review petitioner can stay in India only
for a period of one week to take his
belongings from the apartment situated at
RP NO. 785/2021 in
W.P.(C)No.12911/2021
Kochi. This was just like a consent order.
This Court also clearly stated in the judgment
that, all the contentions raised in the writ
petition are left open and the petitioner is
free to approach the appropriate authorities
in accordance to law, if there is any other
grievance to the petitioner. In such
circumstances, I think there is nothing to
review in the judgment.
After hearing the counsel for the Review
petitioner and also after going through the
memorandum of Review petition along with the
Annexures produced in the Review petition, I
see no reason to review the judgment. Even
then, this Court was inclined to extend the
period of stay of the petitioner in India till
12.11.2021, because a time extension petition
was filed before the expiry of the time
originally fixed in the judgment. That
petition was withdrawn because this Court
observed that the same is not maintainable in
RP NO. 785/2021 in
W.P.(C)No.12911/2021
a disposed case. Now the petitioner wants to
reagitate the case after reviewing the
judgment, which is not legally permissible.
Therefore, the Review petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
RP NO. 785/2021 in
W.P.(C)No.12911/2021
APPENDIX OF RP 785/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF E MAIL COMMUNICATION BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 03.02.2021.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE E MAIL
COMMUNICATION BY THE ADVOCATE OF THE
REVIEW PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.6
DATED 22.10.2021.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE E MAIL
COMMUNICATION BY THE PETITIONER TO
RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 27.10.2021.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE E MAIL
COMMUNICATION BY RESPONDENT NO.5 TO
THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2021.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
02.11.2021 IN WPC NO.23702 OF 2021
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE E MAIL
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE ADVOCATE
OF REVIEW PETITIONER AND THE
RESPONDENT NO.6.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE E MAIL
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PETITIONER
AND RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED
05.11.2021.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE FRRO REQUIREMENTS.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
