Kerala High Court
RP/449/2025 of AJAYACHANDRAN Vs KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION on 3 April 2025
RP No.449 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 449 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.26071 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW
2025:KER:28420
RP No.449 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947
RP NO. 449 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.26071 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
AJAYACHANDRAN
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. LATE. CHANDRASHEKHARAN, THEVARAZHIKATHU VEEDU, THIRUMULLAVARAM. P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691012
BY ADVS.
CIBI THOMAS
SWARNA THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NH 66, NEAR RAILWAY
STATION, STADIUM BACK ROAD, KARBALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
THE SECRETARY,
KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NH 66, NEAR RAILWAY
STATION, STADIUM BACK ROAD, KARBALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY, KSRTC BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
Shri.S.Sreekumar (Kollam), S.C, Shri.Prakash M.P, SC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:28420
RP No.449 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
This review petition is filed in view of the fact that, when the petitioner filed a memo to withdraw WP(C) No. 26071 of 2024, permission was sought for liberty to file a fresh writ petition. However in the judgment, that liberty is not seen granted. This review petition was filed in such circumstances. On perusal of the memo submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that, they sought for liberty to file a fresh one. Thus I am convinced that a modification is required. Therefore, this review petition is disposed of, clarifying that, dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, will not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching this Court again on the same cause of action. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE SM/0304