Kerala High Court
Vinod M.R vs V.V.Mohan on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:10122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
RP NO. 979 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2016 IN WPC NO.27358 OF
2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8:
1 VINOD M.R., MOOZHICKAL HOUSE, MADATHUMOOZHY,
PERUNAD P.O., RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689711.
2 ASHOKAN, MOOZHICKAL HOUSE, MADATHUMOOZHY,
PERUNAD P.O.,RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689711.
3 SAJU, PUTHIATHU VEEDU, KOONAMKARA B.O.,
PERUNAD P.O.,RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689711.
4 RAJANKUTTY, RAJBHAVAN, ST.MARY,
MADATHUMOOZHY, PERUNAD P.O.,RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689711.
BY ADV SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 V.V.MOHAN
S/O. VASUDEVAN, VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MADATHUMOOZHY, PERUNAD P.O., RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689711.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691001.
Review Petition No.979 of 2016 in
W.P.(C) No.27358 of 2016 ..2..
2025:KER:10122
3 THE RANNI PERUNAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, RANNI-PERUNAD P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689711.
4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PERUNAD POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRCIT-689711.
BY ADV SRI.V.SETHUNATH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Review Petition No.979 of 2016 in
W.P.(C) No.27358 of 2016 ..3..
2025:KER:10122
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Review Petition No.979 of 2016
in
W.P.(C) No.27358 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of February, 2025
ORDER
Respondents 5 to 8 in the writ petition seek review
of the judgment. Parties are referred to in this order, as they
appear in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner owns a commercial building
within the limits of the third respondent Grama Panchayat. The
grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition was that
taxies are being parked by respondents 5 to 8 in front of the
building in such a way as to cause hindrance to the ingress and
egress to the building. When the matter was taken up, the
learned counsel for the Panchayat submitted that the place in
front of the building of the petitioner is not an approved
Review Petition No.979 of 2016 in
W.P.(C) No.27358 of 2016 ..4..
2025:KER:10122
parking place. In the light of the submission made by the
Panchayat, the writ petition was allowed and the fourth
respondent was directed to ensure that taxies are not parked
in front of the building of the petitioner. It is this direction that
is sought to be reviewed in this proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8
submitted that there was a decision by the concerned Grama
Panchayat on 16.06.2015, in terms of which the dispute
between the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8 were amicably
settled as per Annexure A2 decision, and as per the said
decision, it was agreed that after leaving space to park a
vehicle, the taxi operators can park vehicles in front of the
building of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, it is
suppressing the said decision that the writ petition was filed.
4. The writ petition was disposed of as early as
on 27.10.2016. The judgment does not indicate that such a
contention was taken by respondents 5 to 8 before this Court
when the writ petition was taken up for hearing. It is pointed
out by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 that though
Review Petition No.979 of 2016 in
W.P.(C) No.27358 of 2016 ..5..
2025:KER:10122
notice in the writ petition has been served on respondents 5 to
8, they sought time to file a counter affidavit and despite their
prayer for time to file a counter affidavit, the Court disposed of
the writ petition, and it is on account of that reason that the
contention aforesaid could not be taken. The judgment does
not indicate that counsel for respondents 5 to 8 sought time for
filing counter affidavit when the matter was taken up. When
this fact was brought to the notice of the counsel for the
respondents 5 to 8, the learned counsel brought to my notice,
the averments made in paragraph 8 of the review petition.
Paragraph 8 of the review petition reads thus:
"Infact the petitioners have appeared in the above Writ Petition
on 07.10.2016. Thereafter the matter was posted on 20.10.2016
and stood adjourned for their counter affidavit. Since the
petitioners have applied for the relevant documents for preparing
the counter affidavit, they wanted further time for the same. So
when the matter came up on 27.10.2016, the junior counsel was
entrusted to adjourn it to next week for the above purpose.
Unfortunately, now the petitioners were given to understand that
on 27.10.2016 the above Writ Petition stands allowed solely on
the submission of the 3 rd respondent that the place in front of the
building of the 1st respondent is not an approved parking place.
Consequently, the 4th respondent was directed by this Hon'ble
Review Petition No.979 of 2016 in
W.P.(C) No.27358 of 2016 ..6..
2025:KER:10122
Court to ensure that taxis are not parked in front of the building
of the petitioner."
The averments in paragraph 8 does not indicate that anybody
has even appeared for respondents 5 to 8 when the writ
petition was taken up for hearing. In the circumstances, it
cannot be said that the judgment sought to be reviewed is
vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record.
The review petition, in the circumstances, is devoid
of merits and the same is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
ds 07.02.2025
Review Petition No.979 of 2016 in
W.P.(C) No.27358 of 2016 ..7..
2025:KER:10122
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED
05.06.2015 OF TEH ASST. ENGINEER, PWD
ROADS SECTIONM LAHA
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED
15.06.2015 AND TERMS AGREED BY THE
PETITIONER IN THE HEARING HELD ON
16.06.2015.
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RTI
ACT, 2005 AND THE REPLY DATED 20.10.2016
TENDERED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ADDL.ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI
ACT, 2005 ALONG WITH REPLY DATED
27.12.2016 SERVED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
ADDL.ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORTS APPEARED
IN VARIOUS DAILIES AGAINST THE ILLEGAL
ACTIVITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
