Johny Thomas vs The Divisional Forest Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 717 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
                         RP NO. 22 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 11579/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                               KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

         JOHNY THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS
         THAKIDIYEL HOUSE, PO,
         MEZHUMKUMPARA, MANNARKADU, PALAKKAD.
         BY ADVS.
         P.BABU KUMAR
         P.YADHU KUMAR
         VISHNU BABU


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
          ARANYAKAM, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 582.
    2     THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER
          ARANYAKAM, MANNARKADU, PALAKKAD-678 582.
    3     THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
          EASTERN CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678 002.
    4     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY FOREST AND WILDLIFE, SECRETARY,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
OTHER PRESENT:

         SR.ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
         SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL.GP(FOREST)


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2023,     THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                        -2-
R.P.No.22 of 2023 in
W.P.(C) No.11579 of 2020


                             P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                              ======================================================

                                   R.P.No.22 of 2023
                                           in
                                W.P.(C) No.11579 of 2020
                           =============================================================

                   Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023

                                                ORDER

This review petition is filed to recall the judgment dated

02.09.2021 in WP(C) No.11579 of 2020.

2. The learned Senior Counsel Adv.George Poonthottam,

instructed by Adv.Alex M.Scaria appeared for the review

petitioner. I also heard the Special Government Pleader (Forest).

The Senior Counsel takes me through paragraph 6 of the review

petition and paragraph 2 of the judgment. It will be better to

extract paragraph 6 of the review petition here:

"6. Actually there was no instruction from the review petitioner to limit the prayer only for the consideration and disposal of Exhibits-P11 to P13. It happened due to a wrong understanding out of the discussion with the petitioner for inclusion of the challenge in respect of EFL notification as well.

Therefore only due to the misunderstanding of the

R.P.No.22 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.11579 of 2020

requirement, the limiting of the prayer was happened and it was not intentional, but only an accidental one."

3. Since, there is a mistake on the part of the lawyer, I

think the judgment can be recalled.

Therefore, this review petition is allowed. Judgment dated

02.09.2021 in WP(C) No.11579 of 2020 is recalled. The writ

petition is restored to file.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das

R.P.No.22 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.11579 of 2020

APPENDIX OF RP 22/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1 - CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.09.2021 WP(C) 11579/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.