M. Abdul Nazar vs Muhammadali A.K

Devan Ramachandran, J

This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 21.12.2023, has been filed by the petitioner, asserting that he ought to have been made a party in the writ proceedings by the writ petitioner. He contends that there are civil proceedings pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court; but that it is suppressing such fact, that the judgment was obtained by the writ petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the judgment, sought to be reviewed, be vacated.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioners – Sri.T.K.Sandeep, however, in response, submitted that this Court has only directed the 1st respondent in the writ petition, namely the Deputy Director of Fisheries, to take up the representations of his clients and dispose of the same, after hearing them. He submitted that, therefore, there is nothing in the judgment which is requisite to be reviewed by this Court.

The learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, also affirmed that the judgment only directs the Deputy Director of Fisheries to consider the case of the petitioners. He submitted that, therefore, if the petitioner herein is also required to be heard, he will not stand in the way of appropriate orders being issued.

No doubt, when the exercise as ordered in the judgment is to be completed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, he must do so as per law; for which purpose, certainly, all interested persons will have to be heard. Since the petitioner now says that there are civil disputes between him and the writ petitioners, obviously, he should also be heard by the said Authority.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Review Petition, to the limited extent of clarifying that, while the exercise as ordered in the judgment sought to be reviewed is completed, the petitioner herein will also be given an opportunity of being heard.