IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943 RP NO. 234 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.01.2020 IN WA NO.167/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

3 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

5 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686675 BY ADVS.

GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

M/S.VALLAMATTOM STONE AGGREGATES (PVT) LTD.

PANDAPPILLY.P.O, AARAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR GEORGE K. VALLAMATTOM, PIN - 686672 BY ADV.SHINOJ.K.N.

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.

-------------------------------------------

R.P No.234 of 2022 in W.A.No. 167 of 2020 -------------------------------------------

Dated, this the 11^th day of March, 2022

O R D E R

K.Vinod Chandran,J The learned Advocate General appears for the State, in the review petition filed by the State on a short ground. The contention is that the review, though permitted by the Honourable Supreme Court, was not maintainable in the manner in which it was filed before this Court.

2. The contention is that the learned Single Judge had passed judgment dated 09.11.2018 in WP(C) No. 7295/2018, in a batch of writ petitions. The contention raised by the various petitioners being identical was rejected by the learned Single Judge in a common judgment. The various petitioners except the respondent herein, approached the Division Bench, in an appeal. The Division Bench by a decision reported in Binoy Kumar v. State of Kerla [2019(2) KLT 227] (Annexure-R5(b)) dismissed the appeal on 25.03.2019. The appeal filed by the respondent, came up before the Division Bench on the very next day. The Division Bench by Annexure-R5 (c) rejected that appeal also, following the decision above cited. The respondent took up the matter before the Honourable Supreme Court in which was passed Annexure-R5 (d). The Special Leave Petition was not entertained. However, taking into account the submission made by the respondent, who was the petitioner therein, that the order relied upon is not applicable to the case of the petitioner (sic); the respondent was granted liberty to approach the High Court itself. The petitioner filed a review before the learned Single Judge, which was rejected on which an appeal was filed, which was allowed by us.

3. The short ground for review raised by the learned Advocate General is that the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed on 09.11.2018 merged with the decision of the Division Bench in 2019. Though the petitioner was not a party to Annexure R5(b), the said decision was followed in his appeal, which order is produced as Annexure R5(c). Hence the review, as permitted by the Honourable Supreme Court has to be filed against the decision at Annexure R5 (c) and R5 (b) and not to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We are inclined to accept the ground for review which we are of the opinion is an error apparent on the face of the record. But we have to observe that the State had never raised this ground through out the proceedings in the review and confess that it never occurred to us too.

4. Be that as it may, the maintainability itself having been challenged on valid grounds, we are inclined to allow the review and reject the appeal on that short ground. The learned counsel for the respondent then sought liberty to file a review from the