V.M.Saboor @ Saboor Ali v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2015/18TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 763 of 2014 () IN WP(C).10732/2013 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10732/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 01-07-2013 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.5:

------------------------------------------------------------------------ V.M.SABOOR @ SABOOR ALI D/O. DR.V.B.MOHAMMED, VALIYAVEETTIL BAVA MEMORIAL BUILDINGS, MUSLIM STREET, KOCHI-682 035 NOW RESIDING AT 10, SPORHAMS, BASILDON ESSEX, POST CODE SS165TT, UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY MUHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, VALIYAVEETTIL SOUMYA NAGAR, 5TH LANE, ALINCHUVADU KOCHI-24.

BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6/PETITIONER: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (STATE POLICE CHIEF) POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

3. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER ERNAKULAM-682 035.

4. SUNIL JACOB, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. JACOB, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM-682 035.

5. SATHAR VALIYAVEETTIL, AYSHA MAHAL, UNNICHIRA THAIKKAVU ROAD, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR-682 033.

6. SINZAD , AGED 32 YEARS S/O. LATE N.P.ANWAR HUSSAIN, SABOOR MANSION, BLOCK A BAVA MEMORIAL BUILDINGS, MUSLIM STREET, KOCHI-682 035. R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SAJI R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-072015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.K.ABDUL REHIM & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

----------------------------------------- RP .No. 763 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2015

ORDER

K.Ramakrishnan,J.

When the review petition came up for hearing today, counsel for the 6th respondent in the review petition who is the petitioner in the writ petition submitted that he has no objection in allowing the application for review as due to the change of circumstance, he does not want any police protection and the writ petition can be dismissed as not pressed leaving open the right of the parties to agitate the case before the civil suit pending. Counsel for the review petitioner also wanted the same observation. Further it is seen from the records that the review petitioner was not served any notice. Under the circumstance this is a fit case where the judgment passed by this court on 1.7.2013 has to be recalled. The review petition is allowed and the judgment in WP(C).No.10732/2013 dated 1.7.2013 is recalled .

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

RP.763/2014