VIMALA KUMARI Vs. STATE
LAWS(KER)-1993-1-17
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on
January 22,1993
VIMALA KUMARI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SHANKARSAN DASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]PADMANABHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [OVERRULED]
Cited Judgements :-
SUNIL KUMAR P ARACKAL PARAMBIL, EDAVETTY PO, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT VS. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 688 001 [LAWS(KER)-2016-10-46] [REFERRED TO]SUJITH E S S/O P R SURENDRAN VS. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-237] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2002-6-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. SATHEESH AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
SOUMYA M.R. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-11-358] [REFERRED TO]
UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR G . S . VS. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(KER)-2019-2-129] [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-1996-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. N.K. SREEJA [LAWS(KER)-1997-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
E R BIJU; S MANIKUTTAN VS. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS [LAWS(KER)-2010-1-217] [REFERRED]
K P VINOD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-1-213] [REFERRED TO]
BENOY VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-1997-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
FEROSH M. BASHEER VS. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-11-163] [REFERRED TO]
SARITHA K.S. VS. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA LAND REVENUE STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. JAYAMOHAN V. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
SREELEKHA R SREEVILASOM VS. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-2005-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This Review Petition is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Appeal who are petitioners in O.P.No.6720 of 1986 against which the Writ Appeal was filed.
(2.)The Writ Appeal was heard along with certain other Writ Appeals and was disposed of by a common judgment dated 4th December, 1992. The Writ Appeals were filed by the State.
(3.)It is alleged, in the Review Petition that the review petitioners had engaged Mr. K.S. Rajamony, Senior Counsel as their advocate who was appointed as a Member of the Kerala Public Men Corruption Commission and on his accepting the assignment the petitioners engaged the present counsel Mr. James Vincent who filed Vakalath in the case on 23-3-1992. He had also filed C.M.P.No.2294 on 23-3-1992 for an early posting of the Writ Appeal. But when the Writ Appeals were posted for hearing before the Full Bench in November, 1992 the name of counsel was omitted to be noted in the cause list and the names of the patties alone were shown. Accordingly counsel had no notice and the Writ Appeal happened to be disposed of without hearing counsel for the review petitioners. Even though in the judgment Sri. K. P. Satheesan is shown as having represented the review petitioners, his name was also not noted in the cause list so that he also could not take part in the hearing of the case. Accordingly this Review Petition is filed to review the judgment and rehear the petitioners.
;
(2.)The Writ Appeal was heard along with certain other Writ Appeals and was disposed of by a common judgment dated 4th December, 1992. The Writ Appeals were filed by the State.
(3.)It is alleged, in the Review Petition that the review petitioners had engaged Mr. K.S. Rajamony, Senior Counsel as their advocate who was appointed as a Member of the Kerala Public Men Corruption Commission and on his accepting the assignment the petitioners engaged the present counsel Mr. James Vincent who filed Vakalath in the case on 23-3-1992. He had also filed C.M.P.No.2294 on 23-3-1992 for an early posting of the Writ Appeal. But when the Writ Appeals were posted for hearing before the Full Bench in November, 1992 the name of counsel was omitted to be noted in the cause list and the names of the patties alone were shown. Accordingly counsel had no notice and the Writ Appeal happened to be disposed of without hearing counsel for the review petitioners. Even though in the judgment Sri. K. P. Satheesan is shown as having represented the review petitioners, his name was also not noted in the cause list so that he also could not take part in the hearing of the case. Accordingly this Review Petition is filed to review the judgment and rehear the petitioners.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.