Kerala High Court
Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam vs K.K.Surendran on 5 March, 2020
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941
RP.No.253 OF 2020 IN FAO. 98/2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN FAO 98/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 13:
1 PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM,
VALACODU.P.O, PUNALUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
2 N.P.JOHN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
CHITHIRA, THOLICODU.P.O, PUNALUR, RESIDNET OF THE
PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODU.P.O., PUNALUR.
3 ASHOK.B VIKRAMAN,
AGED ABOUY 58 YEARS,
VIKRAMSILA, PUNALUR.P.O, PUNALUR, SECRETARY OF THE
PTHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODE.P.O, PUNALUR.
4 N.MAHESAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
KOLLAMPARAMBIL VEEDU, MATHRA.P.O, THOLICODE PUNALUR
SCHOOL MANAGER OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM
5 PUNALUR,
PUNALUR TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODU.P.O, PUNALUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
BY ADV. SRI.N.SATHEESH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4/RESPONDENTS 5 TO 12:
1 K.K.SURENDRAN
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.KUNJUPILLAI, RESIDING NOW AT VEENA,
VILAKKUVATTAM, VALACODE VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK,
MEMBER NO.362 OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM-
691305.
2 ABRAHAM MATEHW
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.ABRAHAM V. MATHAI, EX - MUNICIPAL COUNCILLOR,
VILLIESE COTTAGE, VILAKKUVATTAM, VALACODE VILLAGE,
PUNALUR TALUK, MEMEBER NO.2612 OF THE PATHANAPURAM
TALUK SAMAJAM 691305
RP.253/2020 IN FAO.98/2018 2
3 K.M.YOHANNAN
AGED 64 YEARS
EX-MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR KAVUMKAL HOUSE, (KAVUVILA
HOUSE), BHARANIKKAVU, PUNALUR VILLAGE, MEMBER
NO.3768 OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM-691305
4 N.JOEY(JOEY LUKKOSE)
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.LUKKOSE, CHARUVILA VEEDU CHERMMANTHOOR PUNALUR
TALUK MEMBER NO.3120 OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK
SAMAJAM, SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR,
SRI.K.JAGADEESH-691305
5 ADOOR N.JAYAPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ISWARYA BHARANIKKAVU PUNALUR COMMITTEE MEMBER OF
THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, PUNALUR-691305
6 PRADEEP CHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
AMBADIYIL MATHRA.P.O., COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE
PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, PUNALUR-691305
7 S.M.KHALEEL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PUNALUR ESTATE BUNGALOW, VALACODU.P.O, PUNALUR,
COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM,
PUNALUR-691305
8 VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED 60 YEARS
K.ELLUKATTU VEEDU, ARAMPUNNA, PUNALUR, COMMITTEE
MEMEBER OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK, SAMAJAM,
VALACODE.P.O, PUNLAUR-691305
9 C.VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
VADAKKEKKARA VEEDU, MANIYAR, PUNALUR, COMMITTEE
MEMBER OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM,
VALACODU.P.O, PUNALUR-691305
10 C.P.SAMUEL
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
CHAMKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAVALOOR.P.O, COMMITTEE
MEMEBER OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM,
VALACODE.P.O, PUNALUR-691305
11 KADAVIL BABU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
KADAVIL THOLICODE.P.O, PUNALUR, CO-OPTED COMMITTEE
RP.253/2020 IN FAO.98/2018 3
MEMEBER OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM,
VALACODE.P.O, PUNLAUR-691305
12 S.NOWSHARUDEEN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NABEEZATHU BUILDING, PUNALUR, CO-OPTED COMMITTEE
MEMBER OF PATHANAPURAM TALUK SAMAJAM, VALACODE.P.O-
691305
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.253/2020 IN FAO.98/2018 4
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the review of the judgment of this Court dated 30/01/2020, primarily for the reason that the petitioners were unable to appear before this Court at the time when it is delivered and explaining that it was on account of reasons that are stated in this petition.
2. Even when I hear Shri.N.Satheesh, learned counsel for the review petitioner on the afore lines, it is clear that though I have recorded in the judgment that the petitioners herein had not been present, it had been delivered on merits, after adverting to all relevant and germane aspects and not merely because of the non-appearance of the petitioners. The facts and factors that impelled this Court to arrive at the conclusions in the judgment are clear from it and I am certain that even if the petitioners had been present before this Court at the time when it was delivered, the opinion would not have been different, since I am certain in my RP.253/2020 IN FAO.98/2018 5 mind that the Trial Court must reconsider the matter, particularly taking note of Exts.A1 and A2 on one side and Ext.B2 on the other.
3. I am of course aware that the submissions of Shri.N.Satheesh is that the decision to convert the "Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam" which is a public trust into an entity registered under the provisions of Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, was taken by the General Body of the Trust in which the appellants in the F.A.O. had also participated. Shri.N.Satheesh further says that the appellants had, in fact, taken part in the elections to the subsequently registered Society and that it is only when they were elected in it that they filed the appeal.
4. I am, however, firm that the afore submissions made by Shri.N.Satheesh would not alter the position or the opinion of this Court recorded in the judgment, because, even if the appellants in the F.A.O. had subscribed RP.253/2020 IN FAO.98/2018 6 to any such decision of the Trust, it would be of no consequence, unless it is sanctioned and governed by law.
I am, therefore, of the firm view that the directions in the judgment does not require any alteration; and consequently dismiss this review petition, finding it to be without merit, but leaving open all contentions of either side to be pursued before the Trial Court, as per the liberty granted to them in the judgment.
This review petition is thus dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/5.3.2020