V.S Kunjappan v. Director. Urban Affairs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/26TH POUSHA, 1936 RP.No. 31 of 2015 () IN WP(C).9836/2014 ------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-04-2014 IN WP(C) 9836/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER:

------------------------------- V.S KUNJAPPAN, AGED 61, S/O. SANKU, VALAYAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, NAMBIYAPURAM, KOCHI-6.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER RESPONDENTS:

-----------------------

1. DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

2.

SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM-682011.

R1 BY GOVT PLEADER SRI. P.V. ELIAS.

R2 BY SRI.RAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN,SC,COCHIN CORP. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RP No.31/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-I - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC No.9836/2014 DATED 08-04-2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.

ANNEXURE-II - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF ACCOUNTS OFFICER BEARING No.MOA18/29859/2011 DATED 21-11-2014.

ANNEXURE-III - TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 08-12-2014. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL True copy P.A. To Judge

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

------------------------------------------------- R.P No. 31 OF 2015 IN W.P.(c) No.9836 OF 2014-D ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

O R D E R

A review of the direction contained in the judgment is sought for on the basis that the 1st respondent in the writ petition is the competent authority to sanction the amount due under the Provident Fund account.

2.

Heard; Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent in the writ petition. It is convinced that a modification of the judgment to the effect of issuing appropriate direction to the 1st respondent is warranted. 3.

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Review Petition is allowed by modifying the judgment to the extent of correcting the term "2nd respondent" wherever appearing in paragraph 2 and 3 of the judgment as "the respondents".

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge