High Court of KeralaRP/858/2014disposed of

E.S.Meeran v. The Village Officer, Varappetty Village

2015-10-07Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/15TH ASWINA, 1937 RP.No. 858 of 2014 (A) IN WP(C).5808/2013 ------------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5808/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-04-2013) REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

------------------------------------ E.S.MEERAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O. SAIDU, ERRACKAL HOUSE, PIDAVOOR KARA VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY SRI.R.PARAMESWARA IYER SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

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

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VARAPPETTY VILLAGE P.O. VARAPPETTY, KOTHAMANGLALAM.

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, VAZHAPPILLY.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.

3. TALUK TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM.

4. SECRETARY, VARAPPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VARAPPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VARAPPETTY.P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM.

5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD KOCHI-30.

R4 BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DEVRAJ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. R.P.No.858 OF 2014 IN W.P.(C)No.5808 OF 2013 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th October, 2015

O R D E R

Heard the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents

2. The direction given by this Court as per the judgment dated 10.04.2013 was only to cause Ext.P12 application preferred by the petitioner to be considered and to pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is stated that an order has been passed by the concerned authority stating that BTR cannot be corrected. Since this Court had not decided the issue on merits, it is open for the review petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedy, if any, in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the order, issued by the concerned officer.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lk