VARGHESE M.O. Vs. SHALIMAR GRANITES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment, dated 26.09.2019, by Sri.M.O.Varghese on the allegation that he is one of the Joint Managing Partners of the Writ Petitioner-M/s Shalimar Granites.

(2.) According to the review petitioner, the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court showing its Managing Partner to be a certain Sri.Thoufeeq and that they have sought for Ext.P6 application, preferred under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ((herein after referred to as 'the Paddy Land Act' for short), to be taken up and disposed of within a time frame. The review petitioner submits that Ext.P6 is untenable in law, since the application has been made by Sri.Thoufeeq in his personal capacity, even though the property belongs to M/s Shalimar Granites. He, therefore, prays that the judgment in question be reviewed and the RDO be directed to consider Ext.P6, however, only in the name of the partnership firm and not in the individual name of Sri.Thoufeeq.

(3.) Sri.V.M.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that this Review Petition is completely unnecessary, since his client has approached this Court clearly declaring that the property in question belongs to the firm and not to Sri.Thoufeeq. He says that the name of the applicant in Ext.P6 has been shown as the Managing Partner of M/s Shalimar Granites and that name of Sri.Thoufeeq has been shown therein only in such capacity and therefore, that the directions in the judgment would not cause any prejudice even to the review petitioner. He, therefore, prays that this Review Petition be dismissed.