2025:KER:14290 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946 RP NO. 33 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.12.2024 IN WP(C) NO.46310 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.46310/2024: THE THRISSUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 87 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001 BY ADVS. C.D.DILEEP SHYLAJA VARGHESE DHEERAJ PRADEEP C. RESPONDENT S / PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC NO.46310 OF 2024 : 1 ANTO D OLLUKARAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O.O.V.DEVASSY, OLLUKARAN HOUSE, CHURCH SQUARE, PARAVATTANY, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CO- OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPUARAM., PIN – 695014. RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 2 2025:KER:14290 3 THE REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPUARAM, PIN – 695014. 4 THE JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003. Smt. K.G. Sarojini- GP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 3 2025:KER:14290 ORDER The present review petition is filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition alleging suppression of material facts in the writ petition. 2. The main ground raised in the review petition is that the petitioner in the writ petition did not disclose the filing of an earlier writ petition as W.P.(C)No.44260/2024. The facts disclosed in the review petition shows that the petitioner in the writ petition had approached this Court aggrieved by the attempt made by the review petitioner to reappoint retired persons in violation of Rule 183(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. This Court, while taking note of the contents of Ext.P3 letter produced along with the writ petition, had disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition to consider the representation and take appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. Till such time as the decision on the representation is taken, the review petitioner was directed RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 4 2025:KER:14290 not to make any appointments from among the retired hands. It is pointed out by the review petitioner that for the same relief, the writ petitioner had approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.44260/2024 and which was not disclosed in the affidavit filed along with the present writ petition. 3. Both counsels were extensively heard on this issue. 4. It is pertinent to mention that the review petitioner does not raise any ground on merits, but, however, confines his argument to the suppression of material facts at the hands of the writ petitioner. On a query raised by this Court regarding the contents of Ext.P3 letter, the learned counsel for the review petitioner admitted that his client is in receipt of Ext.P3 letter restraining them from appointing any person who have retired from service and that aggrieved by the directions, they have approached the Government and their request to modify Ext.P3 is pending consideration. 5. Coming to the contention of the review petitioner that the present writ petition has been filed suppressing the pendency RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 5 2025:KER:14290 of the earlier writ petition, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/1st respondent was extensively heard. Sri.K.P.Madhu - learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, admits the fact that his client had preferred an earlier writ petition as W.P. (C)No.44260/2024 and going by the present system of e-filing, the said writ petition was placed under machine scrutiny and the writ petition was numbered. However, on presentation of the physical copy of the writ petition, the Registry had noted defect stating that translation of vernacular documents were not produced. The original physical copy of the writ petition was taken back and it was never re-presented. Subsequently, another writ petition was filed after curing the defects, which was numbered as W.P.(C)46310/2024 and the same was considered and disposed of by this Court by the judgment under review. The learned counsel pleaded that the inadvertence on the part of the counsel in not seeking withdrawal of the earlier writ petition may be pardoned and that there is no malice on the part of the counsel in having presented the present writ petition. 6. I have considered the rival submissions raised across RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 6 2025:KER:14290 the Bar. 7. As stated above, since the review petitioner has not sought review of the judgment on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record, this Court finds that no ground is made out for interference, insofar as the directions contained in the judgment under review is concerned. But, however, the issue does not stop there. Admittedly, while preferring the present writ petition, the affidavit did not disclose the pendency of the earlier writ petition. 8. As per the note placed by the Registry, it is revealed that the earlier writ petition was in fact numbered and it was pending on the files of this Court. Therefore, while preferring the present writ petition, admittedly, the affidavit did not state the correct facts. Rule 146 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, requires the manner in which the affidavit has to be prepared while preferring the writ petition. The deponent is under solemn obligation to disclose the correct facts and state as to whether he has approached this Court with a similar relief in RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 7 2025:KER:14290 an earlier writ petition. In the present case, when we see the affidavit, there is a categoric assertion that the petitioner has not approached this Court with any writ petition earlier seeking similar relief in the same subject, which is admittedly wrong. Proviso to Rule 146 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 reads as under: “Provided that no petition shall be entertained by the Registry unless it contains a statement as to whether the petitioner had filed any petition seeking similar reliefs in respect of the same subject-matter earlier and if so, the result thereof.” Therefore, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material fact, though the action is sought to be justified by saying that the original copy of the writ petition was taken back and it was never re-presented. 9. It is also pertinent to mention that going by the records, it is only subsequent to the disposal of the present writ petition, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner – Sri.K.P.Madhu, filed a complaint on 20.01.2025 to the Registry pointing out the issues encountered by him with regard to e- RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 8 2025:KER:14290 filing machine scrutiny. A copy of the complaint is also placed before the Court for perusal, wherein it is stated that the writ petition initially passed the system verification without any defects and was numbered, but it was later discovered to be defective because of the lack of English translated documents. It is stated that due to the delay in receiving the English translation and also considering the urgency for obtaining orders, they had decided to abandon the defects filed and file a fresh writ petition. Though it is permissible for the petitioner and his counsel to abandon the earlier writ petition, this Court finds that no steps were taken by the petitioner or by his counsel to seek permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition by filing a suitable memo or an appropriate application in this regard. Therefore, it is a case were there is admittedly a violation of the provisions of Rule 146 of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971. 10. The question before this Court is whether the judgment under review is vitiated for the error apparent on the face of the record on the ground that there is material suppression as stated above. It is pertinent to mention that RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 9 2025:KER:14290 since the 4th respondent has not raised any contention on merits regarding the sustainability of the direction issued by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that if an order is issued recalling the judgment under review, it would perpetuate an illegality and the 4th respondent/review petitioner will be enabled to proceed with the appointments of retired hands as prohibited under Ext.P3. Therefore this Court is of the view that, if, as a result of the exercise of the power of review, the resultant action will perpetuate illegality, then this Court is perfectly justified in not exercising the power of review which will perpetuate illegality and therefore on that ground, the request for review is declined. 11. However, having said so, this Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the petitioner had taken this Court for a ride by not disclosing the pendency of the earlier writ petition and the intention to abandon the earlier writ petition for the defects noted by the Registry is not reflected from records. It must be noticed that because of the present system of e-filing being followed, as soon as the system completes the machine scrutiny, the writ petitions get numbered. It is only because the RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 10 2025:KER:14290 Registry found out that when the physical copy was presented certain defects were noted, that the writ petition was not sent before the Bench. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to issue direction to the Registry to strike off W.P.(C)No.46310 of 2024 from the system/records since physical copy is not produced. 12. Insofar as the conduct of the writ petitioner as well as his counsel is concerned, no doubt the action of the petitioner as well as his counsel has to be deprecated. Even now, it appears that the writ petitioner has not sought permission of this Court to withdraw the earlier writ petition and the same is still kept pending on the files of this Court. Such a callous attitude of the counsel cannot be appreciated. However, it is only considering the larger interest and not to perpetuate the illegality, this Court has refused the power of review. However, that doesn't mean that this Court can approve the conduct of the writ petitioner or his counsel. Therefore, in the present case, this Court feels that it is a fit case where an appropriate cost has to be mulcted on the writ petitioner for the misstatement of facts in the affidavit RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 11 2025:KER:14290 accompanying the present writ petition. 13. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that cost has to be imposed on the writ petitioner for the misstatement of facts, which he has done in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority and produce the receipt before this Court. If the aforesaid amount is not paid, the Authority is free to take appropriate steps for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE ACR RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 12 2025:KER:14290 The case number, W.P.(C)-46310 of 2024 occurring in paragraph 11 at page 10 of the order dated 13/2/2025 in RP-33/2025 is corrected as W.P.(C)-44260 of 2024 as per the order dated 12/3/2025 in RP- 33/2025. Sd/- JOINT REGISTRAR RP No.33/2025 in W.P.(C)No.46310/2024 13 2025:KER:14290 APPENDIX OF RP 33/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION WP(C) 44260 OF 2024 AVOIDING EXHIBITS. Annexure-A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2024 IN WP(C) 4290 OF 2024 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. Annexure-A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER EXTRACT FROM MATHRUBHUMI DAILY PUBLISHED ON 30.12.2024 .