IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 933 of 2010(L) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN W.P.(C)NO.20515/2010 Dated 01/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, REP.BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ BABU.M.S., S/O.SUKUMARAN, MADATHICHIRAYIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 307. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.CHACKO FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, ALONGWITH W.P.(C). NO.20515/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SMT R.P. No. 933/2010 and W.P.(C).No. 20515/2010 1 S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P. No. 933/2010 and W.P.(C).No. 20515/2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T This review petition is filed by the State against my judgment dated 01.07.2010 in W.P.(C).No. 20515/2010. That judgment reads as follows: “The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the District Collector, Ernakulam, directing the petitioner to comply with certain conditions for granting interim custody of a vehicle which has been seized on allegations of illegal transportation of river sand. However the counsel for the petitioner now submits that, the petitioner would be satisfied with a direction to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Ernakulam to pass final orders pursuant to the seizure expeditiously. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass final orders pursuant to the seizure which resulted in Ext.P3 order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment”. 2. The simple ground on which this review petition is filed is R.P. No. 933/2010 and W.P.(C).No. 20515/2010 2 that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C).No.14570/2010 against the very same order impugned in the writ petition, which was pending at the time of filing this writ petition. In fact, that writ petition was dismissed by Annexure A judgment dated 06.08.2010 ultimately. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition without disclosing the fact that he had earlier filed another writ petition against the very same order impugned in this writ petition and stating in the affidavit accompanying the petition that he had not filed petitions earlier, seeking similar and identical reliefs in respect of the same subject matter before this court. Therefore the petitioner has not approached this court suppressing material facts and as a result conflicting judgments happened to be passed by this court in the challenge against the same order is the contention in the review petition. The petitioner in the writ petition does not dispute the fact that W.P.(C).No. 14570/2010 was filed by him. Of course, in his counter affidavit, he would contend that in the writ petition he had stated that he had filed other petitions before the authorities and this court. In fact, the guilt of the petitioner is compounded R.P. No. 933/2010 and W.P.(C).No. 20515/2010 3 by the same. He deliberately said so to avoid any other action on the ground that he did not disclose the fact of the earlier writ petition without specifically stating that he had filed an earlier writ petition against the very same order impugned in this writ petition. Insofar as the petitioner has abused the process of this court by filing two writ petitions against the very same order, the petitioner has become not only disentitled to the discretionary remedy before this court, but he has also become liable to pay exemplary coasts. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 01.07.2010 is recalled and the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner in the writ petition, who is the respondent in the review petition shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as costs to the State, which shall be recoverable by resort to revenue recovery proceedings. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE smt