Kerala High Court
B. Vinod vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
RP No. 292 of 2025
in
W.P.(C) No.10971 of 2012 1
2025:KER:25216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947
RP NO. 292 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.10971 OF
2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD PETITIONER:
B. VINOD
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN (L), PONNUMKULAM HOUSE,
PARASUVAKKAL PO, PARASALAI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695508
BY ADVS.
K.B.PRADEEP
SRADHA MOHAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT AND 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONER:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PORTS,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF DIST. COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KUDAPPANAMKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
3 THE VIZHINJAM INTERNATIONAL SEA PORT LTD
REP. BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR,9 TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS
TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
RP No. 292 of 2025
in
W.P.(C) No.10971 of 2012 2
2025:KER:25216
VIZHINJAM INTERNATIONAL PORT, VIZHINJAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
NEYATTINKARA, NEYATTINKARA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 B SURENDRA DAS
SREE VISAKH, POONTHURA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695026
7 PRATHAPACHANDRA DAS
REVATHI, PARUTHYKUZHI, POOONTHURA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695026
BY ADV.
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP No. 292 of 2025
in
W.P.(C) No.10971 of 2012 3
2025:KER:25216
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
R.P. No. 292 of 2025
in
W.P.(C.) No. 10971 of 2012
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025
ORDER
The Writ Petition was dismissed based on the submission that the matter is infructuous. According to the Review Petitioner, there is a fresh cause of action and a fresh writ petition is filed. If that is not clarified, the petitioner will be prejudiced.
2. I make it clear that, if there is any fresh cause of action, the petitioner can agitate the same in the new writ petition.
With the above observation, this Review Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM