Aysha Gopalan v. John Maliakal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937 RP.No. 789 of 2015 (B) ------------------------------ WP(C) 25815/2015 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT ---------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.4 :

----------------------------------------------------------- AYSHA GOPALAN, W/O.K.A.GOPALAN, KOCHUTHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CANAL ROAD, MARADU.P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 304.

BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.SABU P.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 & 5 : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. JOHN MALIAKAL, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS MALIAKAL, MALIAKAL HOUSE, TLRA-100 CANAL ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2. DILEEP KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, HOUSE NO. TLRA 98 AMBALAPPATTU HOUSE, CANAL ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 001.

4. THE MARADU MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MARADU,ERNAKULAM-682 304.

5. THE SECRETARY MARADU MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MARADU, ERNAKULAM-682 304.

6. SOBHANA RAVINDRAN W/O. LATE RAVINDRAN, KOCHUTHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CANAL ROAD, MARADU.P.O., ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682 304.

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SOJAN JAMES BY SRI.T.R.RAJAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 789 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 25815 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2015

O R D E R

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the view that the matter requires a detailed consideration. As the writ petition is pending consideration before an other Bench as per the present roster, it may not be appropriate for this Court to do so.

Therefore, the review petition is allowed and the interim order already passed is recalled. The question is left open to be decided in the writ petition by the Bench now dealing with the matter.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/-