HYDROSEKUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. Appl. No. 175 of 2014

(2.) THIS is a petition to condone the delay of 45 days in filing the Review Petition.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions on behalf of the review petitioner. In this case, we must firstly note that the review petition itself has been preferred by another counsel and not the same counsel who appeared in the Writ Appeal. As already observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on many occasions, this practice has to be deprecated. The observations by the Supreme Court were made after noticing that counsel who appear in review petitions, if not the same as counsel who appeared in the original proceedings, would often not be apprised of what transpired in the court at the time of disposal of the original proceedings. No doubt, counsel for the review petitioner would point out that the factual circumstance that arose in one of the cases before the Supreme Court was entirely different and it involved a case where a review petition had been filed by new counsel without notice to the counsel who had earlier appeared in the matter and further, the case related to a clarification petition that was filed in review petitions that were already disposed.