Kerala High Court
M. Abdul Nazar vs Muhammadali A.K on 1 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945
RP NO. 152 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 43048/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY:
M. ABDUL NAZAR,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED,
ARONNIYIL HOUSE, DURGANAGAR, CHERAD,
MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD., PIN - 678651
BY ADV.
SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS IN WRIT
PETITION:
1 MUHAMMADALI A.K.,
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER,
KOONNADATHIL HOUSE, MUTHIRAMKUNNU,
ANAKKAL P.O., MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678651
2 SIDDIQUE,
S/O. A.K. MUHAMMADALI, KOONNADATHIL HOUSE,
MUTHIRAMKUNNU, ANAKKAL P.O., MALAMPUZHA,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678651
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,
FISHERIES OFFICE, MAIN ROAD,
MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678651
4 THE SECRETARY,
JALADHARA SWAYAM SANGHAM,
MALAMPUZHA, PIN - 688651
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP No. 152 of 2024 in W.P.(C).No.43048 of 2023
:2:
ORDER
This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court
dated 21.12.2023, has been filed by the petitioner, asserting that
he ought to have been made a party in the writ proceedings by the
writ petitioner. He contends that there are civil proceedings
pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court; but
that it is suppressing such fact, that the judgment was obtained by
the writ petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the judgment, sought
to be reviewed, be vacated.
2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners -
Sri.T.K.Sandeep, however, in response, submitted that this Court
has only directed the 1st respondent in the writ petition, namely the
Deputy Director of Fisheries, to take up the representations of his
clients and dispose of the same, after hearing them. He submitted
that, therefore, there is nothing in the judgment which is requisite
to be reviewed by this Court.
3. The learned Government Pleader - Sri.Sunil Kumar
Kuriakose, also affirmed that the judgment only directs the Deputy
Director of Fisheries to consider the case of the petitioners. He
submitted that, therefore, if the petitioner herein is also required
to be heard, he will not stand in the way of appropriate orders
RP No. 152 of 2024 in W.P.(C).No.43048 of 2023
being issued.
4. No doubt, when the exercise as ordered in the judgment is
to be completed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, he must do so
as per law; for which purpose, certainly, all interested persons will
have to be heard. Since the petitioner now says that there are civil
disputes between him and the writ petitioners, obviously, he should
also be heard by the said Authority.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Review Petition, to the
limited extent of clarifying that, while the exercise as ordered in
the judgment sought to be reviewed is completed, the petitioner
herein will also be given an opportunity of being heard.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
anm
RP No. 152 of 2024 in W.P.(C).No.43048 of 2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.12.2023 IN W.P.(C).NO.43048/2023.
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.
426/2023 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT-I,
PALAKKAD
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS
UPLOADED IN E-COURT SERVICES ON
19.12.2023 OF MUNSIFF COURT-I, PALAKKAD
WITH RESPECT TO O.S. NO. 426/2023
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL.
