Sunil Kumar M.G vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23753 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                  &
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
 TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                        WA NO. 1593 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2021 IN WP(C) 23303/2021
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            SUNIL KUMAR M.G.
            AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.V.GOPALAPANICKER, SOORYAKANTHI,
            KAROOR, CHEENATHAMPARAMBU, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
            DISTRICT, PIN-688561

            BY ADV SRI.B.PRAMOD


RESPONDENTS/RRESPONDENTS:

            1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
            GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

            2. THE DIRECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF
            PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (CAPE)VIKAS BHAVAN, CO-BANK
            TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033


            THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
            STUDIES PUNNAPRA (CEMP) PUNNAPPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA
            688003


            BY ADVS:
            SRI. A J VARGHESE SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
            SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC


     THIS    WRIT   APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                     :2:
W.A.NO.1593 of 2021




                              JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The petitioner in W.P(C).No23303 of 2021 is the appellant before

us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.10.2021 of the learned Single

Judge. We note that, by the impugned judgment, the learned Single

Judge had permitted the Writ Petition to be withdrawn without

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move a representation before

the 2nd respondent. Before us, it is the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant that no such submission for withdrawal of the

Writ Petition was made before the learned Single Judge, and hence, the

recording of that fact in the impugned judgment is a mistake.

2. We are of the view that the correction of any fact stated in a

judgment has to be done through a Review Petition and not in a Writ

Appeal against the said judgment. We notice, however, that the prayer

of the petitioner is essentially for a consideration of his representation

against a transfer. This right of the petitioner to move a representation

has already been reserved in the impugned judgment. We, therefore,

see no reason to interfere the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

We dismiss the Writ Appeal making it clear that if the appellant moves a

W.A.NO.1593 of 2021

representation before the 2nd respondent within a week from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. Then, the 2 nd respondent shall

consider and pass orders on the same within a further period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Appeal is disposed as above.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

mns

W.A.NO.1593 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONERS ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE