← Library
High Court of KeralaRP/1111/2015disposed of

State Of Kerala v. Asokan.T

2015-11-23Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1937 RP.No. 1111 of 2015 (M) IN WP(C).30158/2008 --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30158/2008 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-09-2015 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:

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

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS (D) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FINANCE), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER ROADS AND BRIDGES DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ROADS AND BRIDGES DIVISION, NORTHERN CIRCLE KOZHIKODE.

6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROADS DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, MANJERI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SOJAN JAMES RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

---------------------------------- ASOKAN.T., AGED 53 YEARS S/O.KUNHIKANDAN, PATTALIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR P.O. KOZHIKODE - 673 571.

BY SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BKA/-

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 1111 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 30158 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2015

O R D E R

The Government is in review.

2.

The grievance of the review petitioner is that there is no arbitration clause in the agreement and therefore, it is not necessary to refer the matter to the arbitration committee. 3.

I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

4.

I feel that the question now raised is an apparent error on the face of the record, which calls for a review. Therefore, the judgment impugned is modified, deleting the direction to refer the matter to the arbitration committee. The matter is left open to be decided by the Government in accordance with law after affording the writ petitioner an opportunity of being heard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The review petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE bka/23.11.2015 //True copy// PA to Judge