Khalid K.K v. Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/17TH ASWINA, 1937 RP.No. 896 of 2015 IN W.P.(C). 25644 OF 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P.(C.) NO.25644/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30-09-2015 ...................................

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 4:

--------------------------------------------------- KHALID K.K KHANDOTHUPARAMBU HOUSE NOCHIMA, NAD P.O.

ALUVA - 683 563 BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN SRI.V.R.RAJESH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 101 SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001 2.

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT (ALUVA) KOCHI - 683 101 3.

THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE WEAPON EQUIPMENT DEPOT KOCHI - 683 101 4.

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 5.

EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY EDATHALA NORTH P.O., ALUVA - 683 561

RP.No. 896 of 2015 6.

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POLICE STATION ALUVA EAST - 683 101 R1, R2 & R3 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R4 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA K.A. R5 BY SRI.ANIL K. MOHAMMED THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DCS

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- R.P. NO. 896 OF 2015 IN W.P.(C). NO. 25644 OF 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of October, 2015

ORDER

The fact remains that the review petitioner constructed the building without a building permit and ignoring a stop memo issued by the Panchayat. There is no equity on the part of the review petitioner to seek for occupying the house pending writ petition. The national interest should prevail over the commercial interest if there is a risk to security as held by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.

There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the interim order dated 30.09.2015. The review petition is dismissed.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS