Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Swarnam R vs Sivan S

Swarnam R vs Sivan S

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 29, 2024
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1306841

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
RP/189/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Swarnam R

Respondent

Sivan S

Excerpt

.....against ext.p6 orderissued by the secretary and while disposing of the writ petition, i had not considered anything on merits. since anorder adverse to the writ petitioner was issued, and an appealwas preferred, the same was only directed to be disposed of. there is no error apparent on the face of the record. accordingly, i find no merit in this review petition, and it is dismissed. sd/- bechu kurian thomas judge ajm in appendix of rp 189/2024 petitioner annexures annexure a1 a true copy of the decision no 1644 dated 25-04-2018 of the municipal council issued to the 1st petitioner dated 6-06-2018 annexure a2 a true copy of the information given by the executive engineer dated 2-11-2022annexure a3 a true copy of the order passed by the ombudsman for local self- government dated 23/03/2023 incomplaint no 1056/2022 annexure a4 the true copy of the order passed by the 3rd respondent order on 11- 08-2023 in compliance of the direction in the wp© no 10389/2020, annexure a5 a true copy the order passed by the 3rd respondent as per the direction of the human rights commission dated 18-03-2023 annexure a6 a true copy the order in hrmp no commission dated 04-05-2023 annexure a7 a true copy of the objection filed by petitioners annexure a8 true copy of the notice dated true copy

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945 RP NO. 189 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.31346 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/S: SWARNAM R AGED 73 YEARS W/O LATE K C MUTHU, , KALAMPUZHA, PALLIIPPURAM P O, MEPPARAMBU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678006 BY ADVS. PHILIP M.VARUGHESE DON THOMAS PHILIP RESPONDENTS:

1 SIVAN S AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE SUBRAHMANIAN ANJANA, THIRUPURACKAL NAGAR VADAKKANTHARA POST PALAKKAD, PIN - 678012 2 GANESAN A AGED 58 YEARS S/O ACHUTHA MOOTHAN ALIAS ACHUKUTTAN MOOTHAN SREE GANESH BHAVAN THIRUPURACKAL NAGAR VADAKKANTHARA POST PALAKKAD, PIN - 682018 3 PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY PALAKKAD REP. BY THE SECRETARY., 4 THE SECRETARY PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001 5 THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY PALAKKAD REP. BY THE CHAIRPERSON,

OTHER PRESENT: SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN (SC)/ SRI. SAJAN VARGHESE K. (FOR RESPONDENT) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: in

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

----------------------------------------- in ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024

ORDER

Petitioner has preferred the review petition challenging the judgment dated 26-09-2023.

2. On a perusal of the judgment, it is noticed that the

Municipal Council has only been directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner in a time-bound manner after hearing both sides.

3. The appeal has been preferred against Ext.P6 order

issued by the Secretary and while disposing of the writ petition, I had not considered anything on merits. Since an

order adverse to the writ petitioner was issued, and an appeal

was preferred, the same was only directed to be disposed of. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, I find no merit in this review petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM in APPENDIX OF RP 189/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO 1644 DATED 25-04-2018 OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 6-06-2018 Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 2-11-2022

Annexure A3      A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
                 THE   OMBUDSMAN FOR     LOCAL SELF-
                 GOVERNMENT   DATED   23/03/2023  IN

COMPLAINT NO 1056/2022 Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ORDER ON 11- 08-2023 IN COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTION IN THE WP© NO 10389/2020, Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 18-03-2023 Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY THE ORDER IN HRMP NO COMMISSION DATED 04-05-2023 Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONERS Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED TRUE COPY

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial