This Review Petition is filed by the writ

petitioner seeking to review the judgment dated

23.06.2017, passed consequent to filing of IA

No.9361/2017, seeking permission to withdraw the writ

petition through a new advocate, signed by the

Administrator of the society.

Accordingly,

permission was granted. However, now Review Petition

is filed stating that, the counsel who has filed

Vakalath, was overlooked and the statement was filed.

2. It is also stated that, as per Rule 20 of the

Kerala High Court Rules, a procedure is prescribed

for change of Vakalath and that procedure was also

not followed by the registry while accepting the

Vakalath and the statement, submitted by the

Administrator.

3. Registry was sought to explain the matter and

the registry has produced a letter issued by the part

time Administrator to the Registrar Judicial, High

Court of Kerala dated 08.06.2017, whereby it is

stated that, the counsel appearing for the petitioner

society, even though disengaged by the society, has

not formally relinquished the Vakalath, and hence,

RP.No.314 of 2018 IN WP(C). 34570/2016 3

the relinquishment letter of the concerned advocate

cannot be produced before the registry.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Writ

petitioner submitted that, the subject matter is to

be considered on the merits of the matter.

5. The application is stoutly opposed by learned

counsel appearing for the respondents submitting

that, a withdrawal memo was signed by the part time

Administrator itself, so that there are no legal

inhibitions, disabling this court from entertaining

withdrawal memo submitted by the part time

Administrator.

6. While evaluating the situation, what I could

gather is that, procedure to be followed in the

matter of change of Vakalath under Rule 20 of the

Kerala High Court Rules was not followed and no

documents are produced before the registry, enabling

the subsequent lawyer to appear before this court and

seek withdrawal of the writ petition. In accordance

with Rule 20, if no objection is given by the

previous advocate, necessarily permission of the

court is to be secured of course by filing suitable

application. But no such exercise was undertaken by

the administrator of the society. Therefore, it

RP.No.314 of 2018 IN WP(C). 34570/2016 4

means, the whole action is illegal. The provisions

of Rule 20 cannot also be said an empty formality,

since it has an intention of controlling and

regulating the proceedings before the court. Since

the matter has become complex also, I think it is

only appropriate that, the writ petition is heard on

merits.

7. It is also clear, consequent to the irregular

action, there is error apparent on the face of the

judgment, persuading this court to recall the

judgment.

Accordingly, Review will stand allowed and the

judgment is recalled. Post in accordance with the

roster.

The Review Petition is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

uu

25.06.2019

RP.No.314 of 2018 IN WP(C). 34570/2016 5

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1

TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD

RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE

SOCIETY DATED 6.01.18.

ANNEXURE A2

TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM

THE INFORMATION CENTRE OF THIS HON'BLE

COURT DATED 12.1.18.

ANNEXURE A3

TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT OF THIS

HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.C 6414/17 AND

9370/17 DATED 22.06.17.

ANNEXURE A4

TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY DIECTOR

OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BEARING

NO.HC/C3/13235/15 DATED 21.3.18.