AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.—This review petition is filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of on
23.02.2012 directing the review petitioners to take effective steps pursuant to Exts. R4(b) and R4(c) notices after considering the replies submitted
by the 5th respondent and on taking note of the directions contained in Ext. P5 letter issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayaths. It was further
directed that the needful effective steps shall be taken to remove obstructions if any caused to the public drain by the 5th respondent or anybody
else, and to protect the drain to ensure free flow of water. Final decision was directed to be taken within one month of the receipt of the judgment.
A further direction was also issued to the review petitioners to look into the complaint submitted alleging unauthorised construction of building by
the 5th respondent and to take necessary steps, if any required. Exts. R4(b) and R4(c) are notices issued by the 4th respondent (2nd petitioner in
this review petition). It clearly alleges that the 5th respondent is doing unauthorised construction of a building close to the drain which was
constructed by the District Panchayath, during night time by filling up the drain using metal and concrete. Through the notice, the 5th respondent
was requested to stop the unauthorised construction forthwith and to submit objections if any against the actions proposed under the ''Kerala
Panchayath Raj Act, 1994''. Ext. P5 is a letter issued by the Deputy Director, Panchayaths to the 4th respondent, wherein it is mentioned that it is
brought to notice that the 5th respondent had reclaimed the drain in question by putting concrete. By the said letter the 4th respondent was
directed to take legal steps to restore the drain at a height of 80 c.m. and a width of 60 c.m. It is on the basis of the allegations contained in Exts.
R4(b) and R4(c) notices and on the basis of Ext. P5 letter, that this Court had issued directions to take effective steps needful to remove
obstructions, if any caused to the public drain.
Contention in the review petition is that the alleged obstruction of free flow of water is because of obstruction caused by the father of the writ
petitioner and some other people of the locality on another drain, and a complaint was submitted before the District Collector, on the basis of
which a report was called from the Village Officer as well as from the Panchayath Office. Further it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer
had issued directions to the Secretary of the Panchayath to remove such obstructions. It is also mentioned that father of the writ petitioner had
approached this Court in a writ petition and the same was dismissed. Further, the review petition narrates about a Contempt of Court case filed by
the writ petitioner and about deputation of an Advocate Commissioner from this Court. A contention is also raised to the effect that the road in
question at the place has been taken over by Government of Kerala by virtue of Annexure A6 Notification and the 5th respondent had issued reply
to a notice stating that the Panchayath has no authority in view of the said notification. On the basis of the above contentions, the petitioners are
seeking review of the judgment and seeking dismissal of the writ petition.
Review of a judgment is warranted only in case where it is established that there occurred any error apparent on the face of the records, or in a
case where the review petitioners produce materials to convince the court that the Judgment happened to be issued without considering any
relevant materials. Developments if any happened after pronouncement of the Judgment is not a ground upon which a review can be maintained.
Therefore, filing of a Contempt Case by the petitioner and deputation of an Advocate Commissioner has no relevance in the review petition. The
obstruction alleged to have been caused by father of the writ petitioner in another drain and actions, if any taken by any authorities with respect to
such obstruction, are not matters in any way connected with this writ petition. Those aspects have no bearing with the alleged illegal acts of the 5th
respondent in filling up a public drain constructed by District Panchayath. In the Judgment in question, this Court only took note of allegations
contained in the notices issued by the review petitioners [Exts. R4 (b) and R4(c)]. It contained allegations to the effect that the 5th respondent had
done the illegal activity of obstructing free flow of water through a public drain constructed by the District Panchayath. It is only on the basis of
those allegations that this Court directed the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath to take effective steps to remove the obstructions if any.
If it is brought to the notice of the review petitioners that by virtue of any Notification of the Government further actions pursuant to Exts. R4(b)
and R4(c) has become impossible, it is for the review petitioners to decide as to whether such objection is sustainable or not. It is pertinent to note
that the notification in question does not relates to the drain, but it only declared that the road in question is classified as ''Major District Road'' by
virtue of powers conferred under the ''Highway Protection Act''. I am of the considered opinion that such a declaration made will not in any
manner prevent the review petitioners from complying with the directions contained in the Judgment in question. Under the above circumstances,
none of the grounds raised in the review petition deserves to be considered as legal and warranting review of the Judgment in question. There is no
error apparent on the face of the record and no fresh materials have been produced, which is in any manner affecting the conclusions contained in
the Judgment.
Hence, the review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.