IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 79 of 2011(U) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23802/2009 Dated 20/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S):RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WP(C): ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (DAIRY), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.K. BABU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ARAKUZHA KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKASRANA SANGSHOM LTD.NO.E.91(D),APCOS, ARAKUZHA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA REP.BY ITS RESIDENT PIOUS GEORGE. 2. THE PERINGUZHA KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHOM LTD.NO.E.92(D)APCOS, PERINGUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- REVIEW PETITION No.79 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th February, 2011 JUDGMENT This review petition is filed by the State seeking to review the judgment dated 20.7.2010 in WPC No.23802/2009. As per the said judgment, an order passed by the petitioner on an appeal filed under Section 83(1)(j) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 evidenced in the writ petition by Ext.P7 was set aside. The said order was set aside on the ground that the same was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. According to the State, the said order was passed after hearing the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner was heard on 5.3.2009. Therefore, it is contended that the judgment was passed on the erroneous assumption that the petitioner was not heard and hence, the same has to be reviewed. 2. The counsel for the respondent points out that the hearing that was conducted on 5.3.2009 had already been brought to the notice of this Court by proper averments in R.P.No.79/2011 2 the writ petition itself. The notice requiring the petitioner to attend the hearing at 10.30 a.m. on 5.3.2009 was also produced in the proceedings as Ext.P5. It was pursuant to the hearing as per Ext.P5 that Ext.P6 proceedings were issued on 21.3.2009. As per the said proceedings, the order that was challenged in appeal was stayed. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that thereafter he was not heard before passing Ext.P7 order. It is also pointed out that though Ext.P6 has been issued by the Deputy Director of Dairy Development, Ext.P7 is issued by the Additional Secretary to Government. Therefore, it is contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review of the judgment, as sought for. 3. I have heard the counsel on both sides and given anxious consideration to the rival contentions. 4. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the writ petitioner, Ext.P5 is a notice issued for hearing immediately on the appeal being filed. Pursuant to such a hearing, Ext.P6 proceedings have been issued by the Deputy Director of Dairy Development granting an order of stay of the order against which the appeal had been filed. Thereafter, R.P.No.79/2011 3 admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner in the writ petition nor was he heard. The above facts had been brought to the notice of this Court by proper averments in the writ petition itself. Therefore, the judgment of this Court was not passed oblivious to the fact that the petitioner had been heard as per Ext.P5, as contended. It is also worth noticing that Ext.P7 has not been issued by the authority that heard the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P5 notice. Therefore, for the above reason also, Ext.P7 was liable to be set aside. I do not find any ground to exercise the power of review as sought in this review petition. The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/