M/S. Le Lagooon Holidays (P) Ltd. v. The Vyttila Mobility Hub Society
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/31ST BHADRA, 1937 RP.No. 683 of 2015 IN WA.1846/2014 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1846/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08-12-2014 --------- REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN WA:
--------------------------------------------- M/S. LE LAGOOON HOLIDAYS (P) LTD.
NO.41/2553A METRO PALACE BUILDING, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD ERNAKULAM - 682 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.T.THULASIDAS RESIDING AT KADAVIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA JETTY P.O. AROOKUTTY, CHERTHALA - 688 535.
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WA:
-------------------------------------------
1. THE VYTTILA MOBILITY HUB SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM - 682 019.
2. KERALA INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY ORGANIZATION (KITCO) LTD FEMITH, PUTHIYA ROAD, NATIONAL HIGHWAY BYEPASS VENNALA P.O., KOCHI -682 028.
BY SRI.M.AJAY BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.683 of 2015 in W. A. No.1846 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2015
ORDER
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Heard.
2. This application seeks review of judgment in writ appeal.
3. The learned single Judge refused to interfere at the instance of the petitioner with a particular contract matter holding that there was no public duty or statutory duty left unaccomplished to enable the issue of writ in the nature of mandamus to compel the first respondent to consider the particular representation. The writ appeal judgment was delivered affirming that decision of the learned single Judge. We see no ground to grant review of the judgment.
4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner says
R. P. No.683 of 2015 -2that some representations are pending with the first respondent. It is left to the wisdom of the first respondent to decide and it has nothing to do with the matter covered by the impugned judgment. Dismissed.
Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE