Kerala High Court
P.Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil vs The Indian Red Cross Society on 4 August, 2020
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942
RP.No.450 OF 2020 IN W.A. 408/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2020 IN W.A. NO. 408/2020 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1 P.ANIL KUMAR @ CHEMPAZHANTHI ANIL
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.A.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT INDEEVARAM, URA-62,
UDYIYANNUR TEMPLE ROAD, MARUTHANKUZHI, KANJIRAMPARA
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023, (CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE
MANAGING COMMITTEE, INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY(IRCS), RED
CROSS ROAD,GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 035) (MEMBER, STATE
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF IRCS UNDER RULE F(D) OF CHAPTER-
III)
2 VALSAMMA SUKUMARAN,
AGED 62 YEARS
D/O. N. SUKUMARA, KUZHIVILAYIL HOUSE MAMKADU P O, ADOOR,
PATHANAMHITTA-691 551.
(MEMBER, STATE MANAGING COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS DISTRICT
BRANCH, REPRESENTATIVE, PATHANAMTHITTA)
3 ADV.M.RAJAN,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. M. GANGADHARAN, ADVOCATE AND NOTARY, SILK STREET,
KOZHIKODE-673 001, (MEMBER, STATE MANAGING COMMITTEE,
IRCS, AS DISTRICT BRANCH, REPRESENTATIVE, KOZHIKODE)
4 A.K.SIRAJUDEEN,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. ADAMKUTTY, SALAMATH ARCADE, AKS COTTAGE, 20/2031,
PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006,(MEMBER, STATE MANAGING
COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS DISTRICT BRANCH, REPRESENTATIVE,
R.P. No. 450/2020 in :2:
W.A. No. 408/2020
ERNAKULAM)
5 ADV.V.D. BALAKRISHNAN KARTHA
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN UNNI, 25, KUMARANASAN NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-682 020, (MEMBER STATE MANAGING
COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ST.JOHN AMBULANCE
STATE COUNCIL)
6 S. AJAYKUMAR
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, VADAKKETHIL VEEDU,
KOCHUPLAMOODU, KOLLAM-691 001, (MEMBER, STATE MANAGING
COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS DISTRICT BRANCH REPRESENTATIVE,
KOLLAM)
7 REJITH RAJENDRAN
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.A. RAJENDRAN NAIR, KRISHNANJALI, MADATHIL NADA,
THIRUVALLAM PO , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027,(MEMBER,
STATE MANAGING COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS DISTRICT BRANCH,
REPRESENTATIVE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
8 ADV.M.S. ANILKUMAR,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. SUNDARESAN, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, SPANSHIO VILLA,
CHUNGAM, IRINJALAKKUDA-680 121, (MEMBER, STATE MANAGING
COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS DISTRICT BRANCH, REPRESENTATIVE,
THRISSUR)
9 P.K.M. IQBAL,
AGED 68 YEARS,S/O. ABDUL KHADER,
REHANALAYAM, THIRUVAMBADI PO, ALAPPUZHA-688 002,
(MEMBER, STATE MANAGING COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS DISTRICT
BRANCH, REPRESENTATIVE, ALAPPUZHA)
10 C.P. KARTHIKEYAN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. KUNJUKUTTAN, PALAKKAL VEEDU, KODOOR P O,
MALAPPURAM-676 502, (VICE CHAIRMAN, STATE MANAGING
COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS DISTRICT BRANCH, REPRESENTATIVE,
MALAPPURAM)
11 MAHESHWAR S
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. SUGATHAN, T.C. 76/596, KILIKKUNNAM, ANAYARA P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029,(MEMBER, STATE MANAGING
R.P. No. 450/2020 in :3:
W.A. No. 408/2020
COMMITTEE, IRCS,UNDER RULE(D) OF CHAPTER-III)
12 ADV. GEORGE VATHUPRAMBIL,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.V.C. JOHN, YETHI SCHOOL, POST KANIYAMPETTA,
THACHILAKKAD, WAYANAD-673 122, (MEMBER, STATE MANAGING
COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS DISTRICT BRANCH, REPRESENTATIVE,
WAYANAD)
13 C. BHASKARAN,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. N. CHANDRAN, ASARIVILAKATH VEEDU, THALIYIL, KARAMANA
P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002, (MEMBER, STATE
MANAGING COMMITTEE, IRCS, UNDER RULE F(D) OF CHAPTER-III)
14 M.D. ARJUNAN,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. P.S DAMODARAN, MUNDUKOTTA, PAINAVU P O, IDUKKI-685
603, (MEMBER, STATE MANAGING COMMITTEE, IRCS, AS DISTRICT
BRANCH, REPRESENTATIVE, IDUKKI)
15 A.P. USMAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. LATE A.K. PAREED, ARUMPASSERY, NAYARUPUARA P O,
IDUKKI-685 602, (MEMBER, STATE MANAGING COMMITTEE, IRCS,
UNDER RULE F(D) OF CHAPTER-III)
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)
SHRI.ASHRUTH NASER
SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL, NATIONAL
HEADQUARTERS, IRCS, RED CROSS ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 THE MANAGING BODY
INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
GENERAL, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, IRCS RED CROSS ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
3 THE INTERIM COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE MANAGING
COMMITTEE,
THE INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KUM.JUSTIC A LAKSHMIKUTTY,
R.P. No. 450/2020 in :4:
W.A. No. 408/2020
(FORMER JUDGE OF KERALA HIGH COURT) KAYIKKARA HOUSE,
AMBALATHARA, POOMTHURA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695026.
4 V.P. MURALEEDHARAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, BLISS, CHANDRANAGAR P O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN-680 077.
R1 & R3 SRI. JOBI JOSE KONDODY
SRI. JAI SANKAR V. NAIR, CGC
SRI. G. SREEKUMAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2020, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. No. 450/2020 in :5:
W.A. No. 408/2020
CR
ORDER
SHAJI P. CHALY, J The review petition is filed by the appellants in W.A. No. 408 of 2020 seeking to review the judgment dated 13.03.2020.
2. The basic contention advanced by the review petitioner is that the rules framed under the Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 (hereinafter called 'the Act, 1920') do not contemplate that an election to the State Managing Committee is to be conducted after convening an annual general body meeting and further that the respondents did not raise a contention to the effect that election of the Managing Committee as evident from Ext.P1 was not in accordance with the rules framed under the Act. It is also stated that Rule 3F of the Indian Red Cross Society Branch Rules ('the Rules' for short) in the matter of operation of State branches reveals that the Managing Committee of the State Unit is composed with only one representative elected by each District Branch Committee and the other members of the committee are either nominated or co-opted as provided under the Rules. Therefore, it is submitted that clause 3F(c) of the Rules would show that the Vice Chairman shall be elected by the Managing R.P. No. 450/2020 in :6: W.A. No. 408/2020 Committee from among themselves at the first meeting held after its composition and it is clear from the said Rule that election for composition of the committee is only optional in certain circumstances.
3. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that the finding in the judgment in the appeal that the election to the managing committee was not properly held is only based on an interpretation of Rule 3B of the Rules, which only provides for the Rules to convene the annual general body meeting and which does not speaks anything about any election to the Managing Committee of the State Units. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner, there is an error apparent on the face of the record susceptible to be corrected in a review petition.
4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner Sri. K. Gopala Krishna Kurup, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, Sri. P. Vijayakumar and Sri. Jobi Jose Kondody appeared for respondents 1 and 3, and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner basically addressed the arguments contending that there was no case for any of the parties that the election conducted to the R.P. No. 450/2020 in :7: W.A. No. 408/2020 managing committee of the State Branch of the Red Cross Society was not in accordance with law and therefore, the findings rendered by this Court in the appeal relying upon the provisions of Act, 1920 and the rules thereto was not in accordance with law. To understand the said contention, it is better that the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum by the review petitioner is considered first. Ground 'L' to 'P' read thus:
"L. The learned single Judge failed to consider the fact that when once there is a provision for election to the State Managing Committee and the procedure is laid down by the rules made under the Act, it cannot be entrusted with an interim committee as decided in Ext.P2.
M. The learned Single Judge ought to have found that in the absence of a specific denial, it cannot be found that merely because of serious allegations are raised against the election conducted may not be sufficient to hold that the petitioners are not members of a duly elected State Managing Committee.
N. The learned single Judge ought to have found that the first and second respondents have no specific case regarding constitution or composition of the committee which was sought to be dissolved by Exts.P2 and P3.
O. The learned Single Judge ought to have found that one of the contentions raised by the respondents 1 and 2 that the opposite group also had been claiming to have elected a similar managing committee, though it had voluntarily relinquished to claim the office, after the national managing body has taken a valid decision to suspend the then managing committee of the State w.e.f 02.08.2019 is not supported by any material or any document.
P. The learned single Judge failed to consider the fact that the election of the petitioners as members of the Managing R.P. No. 450/2020 in :8: W.A. No. 408/2020 Committee and their assumption of office evidenced by Ext.P1 is not challenged by anyone in a properly constituted proceedings before any of the authorities."
6. Therefore, in view of the grounds so raised, the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel that it was nobody's case in the appeal that the election to the managing committee conducted was not in accordance with the stipulations contained under the Act and the Rules in question, cannot be sustained. There is yet another reason to have considered the validity of the election. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, we have quoted the agenda of the meeting convened on 10.08.2019 in the PWD Rest House Conference Hall, Ernakulam wherein there were 15 participants. The agenda of the meeting inter alia was for deciding the chairmanship, resignation of General Secretary, pledging of Managing Committee members, election of Chairman for the period 2019-2022, election of Vice Chairman for the period 2019-2022, constitution of Executive Committee for the period 2019-2022 inter alia among other agendas
7. Therefore, it is explicit that the issue advanced by the review petitioners was a prime subject matter of the cause of action raised by them in the appeal. Moreover, the subject issue raised in the writ petition and the writ appeal was relating to the dissolution of an R.P. No. 450/2020 in :9: W.A. No. 408/2020 alleged properly constituted Managing Committee without complying with the procedures contemplated under the Act and the Rules. Therefore, necessarily we had to enter into a finding with respect to the election conducted on 10.08.2019 so as to identify whether the dissolution of the Managing Committee by the National Headquarters was right or not. It was accordingly that the findings were rendered in respect of the election, taking into account the procedures prescribed for the same under the Act and the Rules, and therefore cogitating so, the contentions advanced in the review petition is unsustainable.
8. Moreover, we are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the interim committee appointed by the National Headquarters to enquire into the financial misappropriation and irregularities of the Managing Committee of the Red Cross Society State Branch has proceeded with the enquiry and the enquiry is complete, and it is posted to 03.08.2020 for report.
9. The scope of adjudication of a review petition is well settled and recognised by a catena of decisions. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai v. RDC Concrete (India) P Ltd. [2011 (12) SCC 166 (SC)], it was held that the power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and R.P. No. 450/2020 in : 10 : W.A. No. 408/2020 should be quite obvious and the mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process or reasoning and further that an erroneous view of law or debatable point cannot be decided while rectifying mistakes.
10. In Ex-Constable Ramvir Singh v. Union of India and others [2009(3) SCC 97], it was held that if the High Court despite a contention being raised did not deal with it, the only remedy was to move the High Court.
11. In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd and Another vs State of Bihar and Others [(2006) 1 SCC 509] it was held in unequivocal terms that,appellants could not be allowed to re-agitate the points which had already been decided by the court
12. It is also well settled that a review would be maintainable only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. From the facts and circumstances and the proposition of law discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the issue with respect to the election was answered by this Court on account of the contentious issues raised by the appellant himself in the appeal and also in order to arrive at a finding with respect to the correctness of the dissolution of the managing committee, as was contended by the appellant/review R.P. No. 450/2020 in : 11 : W.A. No. 408/2020 petitioner. Which thus also means in order to arrive at the final conclusion in accordance with the contentions raised by the appellant, we had to enter into the findings on all the points raised. Therefore, we do not think that there is any error apparent on the face of the record or any other legal infirmities for the entertainment of the review petition filed by the appellant. Yet another reason that would weigh with us is that, already the judgment is acted upon and the committee constituted by the National Headquarters headed by a retired Judge of this Court has proceeded with the enquiry, and the enquiry is complete and the report is awaited.
13. In that view of the matter, since the judgment is acted upon, a review petition at a belated stage is not maintainable under law. The said issue was considered by the Apex Court in the State of Nagaland and Ors. v. Toulvi Kibami and Ors. [(2003) 8 SCC 671]. Paragraph 2 of the said judgment is relevant to the context, which reads thus:
"2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in view of the subsequent events that had taken place consequent upon the judgment of the Division Bench, the review petition filed by respondent No. 1 was not maintainable. In fact the judgment of Letters Patent Bench was acted upon and it stood exhausted and the review petition was futile. Under such circumstances, the review petition ought not to have been R.P. No. 450/2020 in : 12 : W.A. No. 408/2020 entertained and decided on merits."
Judging from any angle, we are of the view that the review petition has no bona fides or merits and accordingly, it is dismissed.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv