T.P.Vijya Bhaskar v. Joy M.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/19TH JYAISHTA, 1937 RP.NO. 476 OF 2015 (P) IN WP(C).4945/2015 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4945/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-03-2015 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:
--------------------------------------------------------------- T.P VIJAYA BHASKAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR MANOLOKAM GROUP PUBLISHING PVT.LTD., KMA BUILDING PUTHIYA ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND OTHER RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. JOY M.P, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. PAILY, MADAVAN HOUSE, CANAL ROAD BRAHMAPURAM P.O., AMBALAMUGAL DESOM PUTHENKURIZHU VILLAGE-682303
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE-1.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOWSY.A BY SRI.P.M.JOSHI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
............................................................. R.P.No.476 of 2015 in W.P.(C).No.4945 of 2015 ............................................................. Dated this the 9th day of June, 2015
O R D E R
The review petition is taken up for hearing. On a consideration of the averments in the review petition, I am of the view that the judgment under review does not require any modification, save to the extent of clarifying that the submission of learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in the writ petition (the review petitioner herein) to the effect that, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition was ready to settle the dues of the petitioner in two equal successive monthly instalments, referred only to the undertaking on behalf of the 2nd respondent that, he would pay the dues to the petitioner in two equal successive monthly instalments and did not amount to a relinquishment of his right to challenge the correctness of the award of the MACT in further proceedings by way of appeal before this Court. Save for this clarification, the directions in the judgment under review are not interfered with and the review petition is dismissed subject to the aforenoted clarification.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns