VALLIKKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH Vs. SHAJI NATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is in review.

(2.) The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein for a direction to the 3rd respondent to shift Anganvady No. 132 from his premises to another building. The review petitioner alleges that the notice to appear on the writ petition was duly served on the review petitioner on 18.06.2015; and accordingly, he had contacted the counsel at the High Court and requested him to file vakkalath on the said case. However, on 23.06.2015, the counsel could not file vakkalath and represent the matter, as a result of which, the writ petition was allowed. The review petitioner alleges that the writ petitioner approached this Court concealing material facts and the averment in the writ petition that the writ petitioner is the owner of the property, wherein the anganvady is situated and he wanted to shift the anganvady to a new place, is false. According to the review petitioner, the property belongs to the Government. It is further alleged that the fact that the Government is the owner of the property is concealed in the writ petition and the writ petitioner made this Court to believe that he is the owner of the property and gained undue advantage of the same, which resulted in allowing the writ petition. According to the review petitioner, it is an error apparent on the face of the record, which warrants a review.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, who is the writ petitioner.