The District Medical Officer v. Edgar Gomez

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/7TH ASWINA, 1937 RP.No. 680 of 2014 () IN WP(C).11565/2014 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11565/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10/6/2014 REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):-:

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

1. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

2. SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HOSPITAL, SASTHAMCOTTA, PIN - 690 521.

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):-:

--------------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR GOMEZ, SANGEETH HOUSE, PALLISSERIKKAL, SASTHAMCOTTA KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521.

BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

============= R.P.No.680 of 2014 in W.P. (C) No. 11565 of 2014 =================== Dated this, the 29th day of September, 2015

O R D E R

This review petition is filed seeking to review judgment dated 10/6/2014. It is stated that the review petitioners have filed a review petition against Ext.P1 order of the Human Rights Commission. But presently no materials have been produced before this Court to indicate that the review petition is still pending.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that their information is that no review petition is pending and they have also produced an information received from the Human Rights Commission stating that no such application is seen pending.

3.

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I do not think that there is any error apparent on the face of record, which calls for review. It is needless to state that if Ext.P1 order is reviewed by the same authority, there is no reason for complying

R.P.No.680 of 2014 in W.P. (C) No. 11565 of 2014 -:2:- with the same. There is no reason for reviewing the judgment merely for the reason that the review petitioners had sought for a review against Ext.P1 order.

Review petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Rp 30/09/2015 //True Copy// PS to Judge