District Collector vs Smt.Mehabooba Beevi
2023 Latest Caselaw 11021 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
    THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                           RP NO. 1000 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2022 IN WP(C) 18502/2022 OF HIGH
                             COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN W.P(C):

    1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
            COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION,
            KUDAPPANAKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043

    2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA GENERAL)
            OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA GENERAL),CIVIL
            STATION,KUDAPPANAKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043

            SRI.PREMCHAND R. NAIR, SR.GP



RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P(C):

    1       SMT.MEHABOOBA BEEVI
            AGED 72 YEARS
            W/O AHAMMED SHERIEF,T.C.15/55,
            SULEKHA TEXTILES,SASTHAMANGALAM P.O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

    2       SRI.DILSHABANU
            D/O AHAMMED SHERIEF,T.C.15/55,
            SULEKHA TEXTILES,SASTHAMANGALAM P.O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

            BY ADVS.
            D.SAJEEV
            LIGEY ANTONY


     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING     COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 1000 OF 2022              2


                            T.R. RAVI, J.
            --------------------------------------------
                      R.P. No.1000 of 2022
                --------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023

                            ORDER

The review petition has been filed alleging that Ext.P5

application which is directed to be disposed of has not been

received. In paragraph 3 of the review petition, it is stated

that reference application dated 21.11.2007 is not received

and it is not seen entered in the inward register but it is seen

in the file at Page No.45. It is also stated that there is a

duplication of Page No.45, since a cheque application bearing

the initial of the Officer, dated 14.11.2007 is also seen with

the same number. It is hence submitted that the petitioners

have not established the receipt of Ext.P4. I do not think

there is any ground for review. The petitioners need not

establish receipt of the application by the respondents

particularly since in Ext.P11 it is admitted that Ext.P5 has

been received. The review petitioners do not disown Ext.P11

which is part of the file. Ext.P11 refers to the application

dated 21.11.2007 and rejects it without any reasoning. It is in

the above circumstances, that a direction is issued in the writ

petition.

2. The Government Pleader submits that it would

appear from the judgment sought to be reviewed that there

was a concession that Ext.P11 is not a reasoned order. It is

made clear that the judgment is not based on any concession.

It is obvious from a reading of Ext.P11 that it is not a

reasoned order and Ext.P11 refers to Ext.P5 also. Even

without any concession from the Government Pleader on the

facts which have been proved before the Court I do not find

any reason to review the judgment.

No grounds made out. The writ petition fails and is

dismissed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE LEK