M/S. Mangalath Granites Kerala (P) Ltd vs The Director Of Mining And Geology
2024 Latest Caselaw 4930 Ker

Kerala High Court

M/S. Mangalath Granites Kerala (P) Ltd vs The Director Of Mining And Geology on 9 February, 2024

Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                      TH
         FRIDAY, THE 9   DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945
                           RP NO. 133 OF 2024

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21524/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

             M/S. MANGALATH GRANITES KERALA (P) LTD
             CHELAKKARA P.O, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
             DIRECTOR SRI. JACOB MATHEW., PIN - 680586

             BY ADVS.
             ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
             S.SREEDEV
             RONY JOSE
             LEO LUKOSE
             KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
             DERICK MATHAI SAJI

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
             DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM
             PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
     2       THE GEOLOGIST,
             DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
             CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020

OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI. P M SHAMEER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


      THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION              ON
09.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.133 OF 2024                   2




                                     ORDER

This Review Petition is filed to seek a review of the judgment in Writ

Petition No. 21524 of 2023.

2. Sri Enoch, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

submitted that while disposing of the matter by judgment dated

12/12/2023, this Court took note of the interim order dated 11/09/2023

and made it absolute. The counsel points out that when the respondents

did not adhere to the interim directions, a contempt proceeding was

initiated. During the said proceeding, the learned Single Judge, who had

issued the interim order, identified certain errors in the operative portion of

the order. Nevertheless, as the case had already been concluded by

confirming the interim order as final, these identified errors have remained

unaddressed.

3. The learned Government Pleader points out that the State is

also filing a petition to review the judgment.

4. Having considered the submissions, I find that there is a clear

error on the face of the record that necessitates invocation of the Court's

review powers.

Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed.

The judgment dated 12/12/2023 in Writ Petition (C) No. 21524 of

2023 is recalled.

Post before the appropriate Court.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE NB/9-2