Kerala High Court
Mammen Varghese @ Kunjumon vs Shajan C. Varghese on 27 May, 2022
R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 4 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2021 IN WP(C) 35176/2015 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/9TH RESPONDENT:
MAMMEN VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON,
(T.M. VARGHESE),
THENGONE HOUSE, KOIPURAM P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689
531.
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
ARUN THOMAS
VEENA RAVEENDRAN
KARTHIKA MARIA
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
ABI BENNY AREECKAL
LEAH RACHEL NINAN
MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8:
1 SHAJAN C. VARGHESE,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.LATE C.C.VARGHESE, CHERIYATHU HOUSE, KOIPURAM P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 2:
PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645.
4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT - 689 101.
5 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 101.
6 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOIPURAM,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.
7 KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PULLAD P.O, THIRUVALLA
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 548, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
8 THE SECRETARY,
KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
OFFICE, PULLAD P.O, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689
548.
9 JIJU VARGHESE MAMMEN,
S/O.MAMMEN VARGHESE, THENGONE HOUSE, KOIPURAM
P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.
BY ADVS.
ADV. VENUGOPAL.M.R
DHANYA P.ASHOKAN(K/001671/2000)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2022,
ALONG WITH RP.14/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 3:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RP NO. 14 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2021 IN WP(C) 8616/2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MAMMEN VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON
(T.M. VARGHESE), THENGONE HOUSE, KOIPURAM P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
ARUN THOMAS
KARTHIKA MARIA
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
ABI BENNY AREECKAL
LEAH RACHEL NINAN
MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT - 689 101.
4 TALUK SURVEYOR,
R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 4:
TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 101.
5 VILLAGE OFFICER
KOIPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.
6 KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PULLAD P.O, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 548, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
7 ASSISTANT ENGINEER LSGD,
KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
OFFICE, PULLAD P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689
548.
8 SHAJAN C. VARGHESE
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. LATE C.C. VARGHESE, CHERIYATHU HOUSE, KOIPURAM P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 531.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2022,
ALONG WITH RP.4/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P. Nos. 4 & 14 of 2022 : 5:
ORDER
The Review Petitions are filed by the 9th respondent in W.P.(C)
No. 35176 of 2015 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8616 of 2016
respectively seeking to review the judgments dated 15.11.2021 and
12.11.2021.
2. The Review Petitions are materially connected and therefore,
I propose to pass a common order on these petitions.
3. W.P.(C) No. 8616 of 2016 filed by the Review Petitioner was
permitted to withdraw as per the judgment dated 12.11.2021 on the
submission of the learned counsel that the Review Petitioner informed
him that he is not interested in pursuing the writ petition.
Consequent to the withdrawal of the writ petition by the Review
Petitioner, W.P.(C) No. 35176 of 2015 was allowed directing the
statutory authorities to remove the objectionable building construction
carried out by the Review Petitioner and identified by the statutory
authorities as per Exts.P4 to P7 and P11 within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
4. Now, the Review Petitions are filed basically contending that
the Review Petitioner has instructed the counsel to withdraw W.P.(C)
No. 8616 of 2016 at a time when he was taking rest after a surgery
and he was not aware of the consequences of the withdrawal of the
writ petition due to his old age and frail health.
5. Anyhow, based on the directions issued in W.P.(C) No.
35176 of 2015, steps were taken by the statutory authorities for the
demolition of the objectionable construction carried out by the Review
Petitioner as per the impugned orders. It is at that time Review
Petitions are filed.
6. The Review Petitions are stoutly opposed by the learned
counsel for the party respondents.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner
Sri. Arun Thomas, learned Standing Counsel, the learned Government
Pleader, other learned counsel, and Sri. Philip Mathew appeared for
the party respondents, and perused the pleadings and material on
record.
8. It is an admitted fact that the judgment was pronounced in
W.P.(C) No. 8616 of 2016 on 12.11.2021 on the basis of the
submission made by the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner/
writ petitioner that he was instructed to withdraw the writ petition.
Records are produced by the Review Petitioner to show that he had
undergone a medical procedure and he is aged about 81 years and
therefore, he has given instruction to the counsel without
understanding the implication consequent to the pendency of the
other connected writ petition and the likelihood of the consequences,
if directions are issued in the said writ petition for implementing the
impugned orders.
9. Anyhow, the writ petition filed by the Review Petitioner was
not adjudicated on its merit. In view of the circumstances explained
above, interest of justice will be met, if the writ petition filed by the
Review Petitioner is considered on its merit. The judgment in the
other connected writ petition filed by the party respondent was passed
as a consequence to the withdrawal of the writ petition by the Review
Petitioner.
10. In that view of the matter, the judgment in W.P.(C) No.
35176 of 2015 has also to be reviewed. Accordingly, the Review
Petitions are allowed and the writ petitions are restored to files.
11. Post the writ petitions for hearing 03.06.2022.
Needless to say, the interim order granted to the Review
Petitioner, when the writ petition was admitted to the files of this
Court, would continue to be in operation till a decision is taken by this
Court in the writ petitions.
sd/ SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
APPENDIX OF RP 14/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE - SUMMARY OF THE
PETITIONER.
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.10.2021 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE COUNSEL.
Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
35176/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.12.2021 ISSUED BY
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SECRETARY,
KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.12.2021 ISSUED
BY THE KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS To Judge.
rv
APPENDIX OF RP 4/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE
PETITIONER.
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.10.2021 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE COUNSEL.
Annexure A111 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 8616/2016
OF THIS HONBLE COURT.
Annexure A1V TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.12.2021 ISSUED BY
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SECRETARY GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 151.2.2021 ISSUED
BY THE KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS To Judge.
rv
