SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20947

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J
THE THRIKKALANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Appellant
Versus
N.K.USMAN – Respondent
RP/364/2020



Advocates:
SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

The court reiterated that application of precedent is contingent on the particular facts of the case.

Headnote:

Review - Writ Petition - Case Reference - Summary of Legal Directions

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a review of a previous judgment regarding a trade license application, asserting the Full Bench ruling's irrelevance to their case.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the review petition, clarifying that the previous directions merely required the competent authority to assess if the Full Bench's dictum was applicable.

Issues: Whether the previous court's order granting a review contains any inaccuracies regarding the applicability of the Full Bench ruling on trade licenses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the intent of its prior judgment, indicating the necessity for the panchayat to consider the Full Bench's ruling only if applicable.

Final Decision: Review petition dismissed with clarification.

O R D E R

The aforecaptioned petition has been filed the respondents in the writ petition (civil) (Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat) seeking review of the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No.6049/2020.

2. Heard Sri.T. Rajasekharan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners/the respondents in the writ petition (civil) (Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayat) and Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the review petition/the writ petitioner.

3. The directions contained in paragraph No.3 of the impugned judgment in W.P.(C) No.6049/2020 reads as follows:-

“3. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice it is ordered that, the 2nd respondent Secretary, Thrikkalangode Grama Panchayath, will take up the plea made by the petitioner in Ext.P-10 application dated 11.2.2020 and will take a considered decision on the request made thereon for grant of D & O trade license, in the light of the legal position settled by Full Bench of this Court in the case in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala & Others [2019 (4) KHC 553 (FB)] para 24 etc, without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.”

4. The contention raised by Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, is that this Court had directed that the competent authority of the panchayat should take a considered decision on Ext.P-10 application for D & O Trade licence dated 11.02.2020 in the light of the legal position settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala & Others [2019 (4) KHC 553 (FB)] para 24 etc, and further that the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Tomy Thomas's case (supra) will not apply in the instant case and that the abovesaid observations made by this Court in paragraph No.3 may amount as if this Court should give the benefit of the Full Bench dictum while considering Ext.P-1o application irrespective of as to whether the said dictum would apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.

5. The said apprehension raised by the review petitioner appears to be unfounded as the direction would only mean that the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Tomy Thomas's case (supra) would only mean that the competent authority of the Panchayat shall consider as to whether the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Tomy Thomas's case (supra) would apply to the facts and circumstances of this case and to give the benefit of the said dictum if the dictum of the Full Bench actually applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. The position in that regard is clarified and declared.

With these observations and directions the review petition will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Skk//26022021 APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FORM DATED 06.03.2019, 22.02.2019 AND

19.12.2019 ANNEXURE A1(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FORM DATED 06.03.2019, 22.02.2019 AND

19.12.2019 ANNEXURE A1(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FORM DATED 06.03.2019, 22.02.2019 AND

19.12.2019 ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF CONSIGNMENT SENT BY THE PETITIONER'S TEXTILE CONCERN PURSUANT TO ANN.A1, ANN.A1(A) AND ANN.A1(B)

ANNEXURE A2(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF CONSIGNMENT SENT BY THE PETITIONER'S TEXTILE CONCERN PURSUANT TO ANN.A1, AAN.A1(A) AND ANN.A1(B)

ANNEXURE A2(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF CONSIGNMENT SENT BY THE PETITIONER'S TEXTILE CONCERN PURSUANT TO ANN.A1, ANN.A1(A) AND ANN.A1(B)

ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMPORTER-

EXPORTER LICENSE OF PETITIONER'S TEXTILE BUSINESS CONCERN ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPYOF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PETITIONER'S PASSPORT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.6049/2020, DATED 28/2/2020, PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE B A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE LOCAL PEOP

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top