IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 143 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.38092/2007 Dated 03/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- K.N. CHANDRAN, PEON, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 4. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J --------------------------------- R.P.No.143 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C)NO.38092 OF 2007 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 ORDER Though styled as review, on going through the averments in the review petition, I am of the view that what is essentially involved is correction of certain mistakes which has crept in the judgment. 2. The first error seems to be the description of third respondent who should actually be the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, South Central Zone, Ernakulam. In the judgment it is stated as Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram. This is a mistake. The second aspect relates to the narration of the fact in paragraph 2 of the judgment wherein it is stated that Ext.P4 memo of charge ultimately resulted in Ext.P12 barring two increment without cumulative effect. As a matter of fact the punishment was bar of six months increments without cumulative effect and the period of suspension was directed to be treated as eligible leave. Third aspect according to the petitioner is that time frame as such has RP.No.143/08 2 not been fixed in the judgment for disposal of Ext.P13. 3. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, the review petition is disposed of in the following terms. The third respondent will be shown as Deputy Inspector General of Registration, South Central Zone, Ernakulam. First sentence in Paragraph 2 of the judgment will read as follows: Ext.P4 memo of charges ultimately resulted in Ext.P12, barring increments for six months without cumulative effect and the period of suspension was directed to be treated as eligible leave. First sentence in paragraph 4 will be substituted as follows: In the result, there will be a direction that Ext.P13 appeal will be taken up, considered and disposed of by the second respondent himself and not by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Copy of the judgment incorporating the above changes will be supplied to the parties. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) sv. RP.No.143/08 3