Gireesh Kumar v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/14TH MAGHA, 1936 RP.No. 94 of 2015 -------------------------- WP(C) 26399/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

.............

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC NO. 26399/2014: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ GIREESH KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. REGHUNATHAN PILLAI, GAURI BHAVANAM, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AT AKTOR, POST BOX NO. 9213, DOHA, QATAR, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHYNI, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. SARASWATHY AMMA, GAURI BHAVANAM, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:

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

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 001.

3. THAHASILDHAR, KOLLAM - 691 001.

4. KOTTAMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUTTICHIRA, PKMC P.O., KOLLAM - 691 001.

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN R4 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

RP.No. 94 of 2015 ------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

---------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION ASHARAF VS ERAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH 2013(3) KLT 323.

ANNEXURE A2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION MOHAMMED ABDUL BASHEER VS. STATE OF KERALA 2013(3) KLT 86.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

- NIL ------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mbr/

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- R.P. No. 94 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2015

ORDER

Initially, the writ petition was disposed of in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in earlier cases. While transcribing the judgment, instead of the decision cited by the petitioner in the writ petition, a decision which seems to be unrelated to the issue has been mentioned as the ratio. Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed the present review petition.

2. I see an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the judgment having no relevance has been quoted as the binding precedent, instead of the one which actually has relevance. Under these circumstances, the review petition is allowed, directing the Registry to issue a modified judgment incorporating the decision Asharaf v. Eramala Grama Panchayat [2012 (3) KLT 323] in the

R.P. No. 94 of 2015 place of the decision already stood reflected in first paragraph of the judgment.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-