IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 474 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 17/02/2011 IN WA.2782/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ THE KALATHARACHIRA PADASHEKHARAM, REG.NO.ER-68/85, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT (SINCE 29-4-2011) SHRI.V.J.STANLY, VATTATHARA HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, CHIRACKAL, KOCHI - 682006. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, S ENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN SMT.VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHELLANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (SPECIAL GRADE), ANDIKKADAVU P.O., KOCHI - 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 3. BENNAN VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, PADASSERI HOUSE, CHERIYA KADAVU, KANNAMALY P.O., KOCHI - 18. 4. A.M.PETER, AZHEEKKAL HOUSE, KANNAMALY P.O., KOCHI - 18. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KOCHI-1. BY MR.DINESH R.SHENOY, SC FOR R1 MR.S.SUJIN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 & R5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.NO.474/2011 APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE RELATING TO THE CHANGE OF PRESIDENT ISSUED FROM THE PADASEKHARAM. ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN THE WRIT APPEAL. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.P.No.474 of 2011 in W.A. No.2782 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This review is filed by the 1st respondent in the Writ Appeal in whose favour the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition declaring their eligibility to collect the entire revenue obtained for licencing the prawn farming/fishing rights for the whole padasekharam. However, in Writ Appeal, we felt that revenue from fishing is partly attributable to common areas which are held by the Panchayat. We therefore applied a rational basis for apportionment of the revenue between the Padasekhara Samithi and the Panchayat in the ratio of 70:30. Both the parties appear to have accepted the judgment with regard to sharing of the revenue. However, there is no specific mention in our judgment about sharing of R.P.No.474/2011 in W.A.No.2782/2009 -2- the amount collected by both the parties in the separate auctions conducted by them during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The review petitioner's case is that going by the ratio of sharing declared by this Court, the Padasekhara Samithi has to get Rs.8,54,850/- from the Panchayat. Learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that there was considerable reduction in the revenue when separate auctions were held during the pendency of the litigation and the unaccounted amount collected would have been shared among members of the Padasekhara Samithi. In the absence of any proof we are unable to accept this contention. In the judgment we did not make a distinction between the revenue collected during the pendency of the litigation in this Court and for the period subsequent to the same. So much so, the Panchayat cannot raise objection against the sharing of revenue in the same ratio declared by us for the amount collected and retained by the Panchayat as well as by the Padasekhara Samithi during the pendency of the matter before R.P.No.474/2011 in W.A.No.2782/2009 -3- this Court. We accordingly allow the review petition by directing the Panchayat to pay to the Padasekhara Samithi an amount of Rs.8,54,850/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty four thousand eight hundred and fifty only) towards arrears of licence fee collected during the years from 2008-09 to 2010-2011 and payable to the Samithi. This should be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Review Petition is allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg