IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 768 of 2010(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33661/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO FISHERIES AND PORTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES(ZONAL), NEAR HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES(ZONAL) NEAR HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. 6. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VYPIN. 7. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE, S.R.M. ROAD, KOCHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- D.JAYAKUMAR, S/O. K.P.DAMODARAN PRESENTLY WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT FISHERIES STATION, VYPEEN, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT ASWATHI BHAVAN, VENGINISEERI, PARALAM.P.O., THRISSUR-680575. ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR FOR R THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.768 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 33661 OF 2008 (G) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 O R D E R The challenge in the writ petition was against Exts.P13 and P20 orders placing the petitioner under suspension and rejecting his application for review. 2. When the writ petition came up for consideration, on the basis that the Suspension Review Committee had recommended revocation of the order of the suspension of the petitioner, directing the Government to issue orders in implementation of the same, the case was disposed of. 3. In this review petition, review petitioners/respondents point out that at the time when the writ petition was disposed of, the fact that the recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee was not accepted by the Government was not brought to the notice of this Court and on that basis they seek a review of the judgment. A reading of the review petition also show that the Government did not accept that recommendation for the reasons mentioned in the review petition. If this fact was disclosed to this RP No.768/10 IN WP(C) No.33661/08 :2 : Court at the time when the writ petition was considered, this Court would not have directed implementation of the recommendation of the Suspension Review committee. 4. Therefore,I am satisfied that the judgment was rendered on an erroneous assumption of facts and since the judgment is vitiated for the aforesaid error, I allow the review petition and recall the judgment. The Writ Petition will be posted before the appropriate court ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp