Kerala High Court
The Managing Director vs K.Animon on 24 May, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
RP NO. 145 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.30182 OF 2023 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT Nos. 3 and 4:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT LTD., (MATSYAFED, KAMALASWARAM, MANACAUD
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
2 THE CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR BOARD,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT LTD., (MATSYAFED) KAMALASWARAM,
MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NoS. 1, 2 & 5:
1 K.ANIMON,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O KUTTAN, JUNIOR ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION),
MATSYAFED, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. NOW RESIDING AT
KARICHALICHIRAYIL VEEDU, ADHINADU SOUTH,
KATTILKADU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690542
2 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
(REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
R.P. No.145 of 2024
(MATSYAFED), PIN - 695033
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM UNIT,
KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013.
SRI. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GOVT.PLEADER.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. No.145 of 2024
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 12.10.2023 in W.P.(C) No.30182 of 2023.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that what was under challenge in the Writ Petition was Ext.P16 extension of the suspension order. According to the learned counsel, though Ext.P5 was also challenged in the Writ Petition, this Court did not interfere with Ext.P6 but proceeded to quash Ext.P16. However, inadvertently, in the operative portion of the judgment, it was mentioned that Ext.P5 and P16 stand quashed.
3. I have considered the submissions advanced. The mentioning of Ext.P6 in the operative portion of the judgment is an inadvertent error.
4. This review petition is allowed making it clear that this Court has interfered only with Ext.P16. Ext. P5 stands as such.
This Review Petition is disposed of.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE PS/24/5/2024 R.P. No.145 of 2024 APPENDIX OF RP 145/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
30182/2023 DATED 12/10/2023