Kerala High Court
Fr: Tuby Baby (Vikar) vs St.Mary'S Jacobit Syrian Orthodox ... on 7 December, 2017
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939
WA.No. 369 of 2018 IN WPC. 37784/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37784/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
07-12-2017
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
FR: TUBY BABY (VIKAR), ST: MARY'S ORTHDOX SYRIAN CHURCH
CHERAI, CHAERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.L.RAM MOHAN
SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ::
1. ST.MARY'S JACOBIT SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH,
CHERAI, CHERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE KAIKKARAN, PIN- 683 514.
2. THE PALIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
CHERAI P.O., CHERAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 683 514.
3. THE SECRETARY PALLIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHYATH,
CHERAI P.O., CHERAI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 514.
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.)
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.ATHUL SHAJI
R BY SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Antony Dominic, C.J. & Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.A.No.369 of 2018
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, C.J.
The party respondent herein filed the writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P3 and obtained a stay thereof. Subsequently, they also filed their replies to Ext.P3 vide Exts.P4 and P6. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the Secretary to pass orders on Ext.P3 duly adverting to Exts.P4 and P6. It is this judgment which is challenged before us by the third respondent.
2. According to the third respondent, Ext.P3 produced in the writ petition contained incorrect particulars with regard to the survey number of the property and it is relying on that document the judgment has been delivered. According to him, Ext.R3(a) is the order issued by the Panchayat and therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have ordered the Panchayat to act upon Ext.P3 duly adverting to Exts.P4 and P6. However, the error in the survey number mentioned in Ext.P3 is sought to be W.A.No.369 of 2018 2 explained by the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contending that it being a typed copy, an inadvertent mistake has occurred in typing the survey number and that '389' was typed wrongly as '380'.
3. Heard the counsel for the appellant, the counsel for the writ petitioner and the Panchayat.
4. Though we were inclined to direct the Panchayat to pass orders as directed by the learned Single Judge adverting to Ext.R3(a) instead of Ext.P3, we are now told by both sides that in pursuance to the directions in the judgment under appeal, the Panchayat has already passed an order. Now that such an order has been passed, we feel that it is up to the appellant to work out his remedies against that order, if he is aggrieved thereby. We, therefore, dispose of this writ appeal giving liberty to the appellant to pursue his remedies against the orders now passed by the Panchayat and leaving open his contentions on that basis.
sd/- Antony Dominic Chief Justice sd/- Dama Seshadri Naidu Judge css/