Kerala High Court
Khalid K.K vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2015
Author: V. Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/17TH ASWINA, 1937
RP.No. 896 of 2015 IN W.P.(C). 25644 OF 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P.(C.) NO.25644/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 30-09-2015
...................................
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 4:
---------------------------------------------------
KHALID K.K
KHANDOTHUPARAMBU HOUSE
NOCHIMA, NAD P.O.
ALUVA - 683 563
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN
SRI.V.R.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 101
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001
2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT (ALUVA)
KOCHI - 683 101
3. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
WEAPON EQUIPMENT DEPOT
KOCHI - 683 101
4. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
5. EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
EDATHALA NORTH P.O.,
ALUVA- 683 561
RP.No. 896 of 2015
6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
POLICE STATION
ALUVAEAST - 683 101
R1, R2 & R3 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
R4 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA K.A.
R5 BY SRI.ANIL K. MOHAMMED
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DCS
V. CHITAMBARESH, J
---------------------------------------
R.P. NO. 896 OF 2015
IN
W.P.(C). NO. 25644 OF 2015
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of October, 2015
ORDER
The fact remains that the review petitioner constructed the building without a building permit and ignoring a stop memo issued by the Panchayat. There is no equity on the part of the review petitioner to seek for occupying the house pending writ petition. The national interest should prevail over the commercial interest if there is a risk to security as held by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the interim order dated 30.09.2015. The review petition is dismissed.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS