IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1156 of 2008(J) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26341/2008 Dated 06/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ------------------------------- SUB LT. APURBA GOPAL MITHRA, 26 YEARS, INS VENDURUTHY, NAVAL BASE, COCHIN 4 ( S/O. S.K. MITHRA). BY SRI.APURBA GOPAL MITRA (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE FLAT OFFICER, COMMANDING -IN-CHIEF, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, NAVAL BASE, COCHIN -4. 3. THE COMMANDING OFFICER, INS VENDURUTHY, NAVAL BASE, COCHIN -4. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Review Petition No.1156 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner appears in person. He states that he does not stand by this review petition. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.731 of 2008. The competent among the respondents in the Review Petition was directed to hand over to the petitioner, the duplicate copies of documents of Court Martial proceedings from the file. Those documents have to be given by the Department, because they form the foundation of the case of the petitioner. However, if the petitioner makes appropriate application for copies of proceedings of documents and duplicates of other documents, they shall also be issued by the respondents in terms of these directions and also those contained in order dated 26-11-2008 issued by this Court on I.A. No.731 of 2008. R.P.No.1156/2008 - 2 - 2. There are certain other issues between the petitioner and the learned counsel who had filed this case. Petitioner alleges that the Advocate has to return some of the documents. Adv.Sri.N.D.Joy had given to the petitioner certain documents on the previous date of posting and some documents today also. Subject to that, he states that he is not in possession of any document, to be handed over, as belonging to the petitioner. These submissions are recorded. 2. Another issue raised is availability or otherwise of a mobile phone of Adv.Sri.Joy. According to the petitioner, while he was in close custody, the mobile phone was brought by Sri.N.D.Joy and it was found in the place where the petitioner and his counsel had a conversation. Sri.Joy states that he had forgotten to take his mobile back. Petitioner states that he immediately handed it over to the duty sentry in INS, Venduruthy. The learned counsel on behalf of Assistant Solicitor General states that the concerned officer would R.P.No.1156/2008 - 3 - return only by 3-12-2008 and that the department is of the view that there is misconduct on the part of the Advocate by giving the mobile phone to the petitioner and that the department is taking up that matter with the Bar Council. These materials would show that the mobile phone, as of now, is in the custody of the authorities. Adv.Sri.Joy may work out his remedies, for the mobile phone, in accordance with law. Leaving open all other contentions, this review petition is dismissed subject to what is stated above. However, in view of some issues relatable to the entry of the premises of INS where he was working at the time of delivering Court Martial, it is appropriate that instead of the petitioner visiting INS, whatever documents are required shall be made available to him through the office of the Assistant Solicitor General and the petitioner, by the force of this order, will be at liberty to make written request to the Assistant R.P.No.1156/2008 - 4 - Solicitor General through whom any document or information sought for by the petitioner in relation to his case shall be made available to him within a period of one week of such request. It is further directed that by the force of this order, the documents shall be handed over through the appropriate channel, on making such request. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/2/12