IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA REVIEW PETITION NO.147 OF 2017 AND REVIEW PETITION NOS.303 TO 305 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NOS.53804 TO 53805 OF 2013 C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.54034 TO 54035 OF 2013(GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
SRI RAFIQ AHMED S/O LATE ABDUL REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7, MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPURAM VILLAGE, BENGALURU – 560 004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR M/S.LEX NEXUS, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. JOINT DIRECTOR MINES AND GEOLOGY SOUTH ZONE, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU – 570 004.
2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA) THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2014 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION.NOS.53804-53805 OF 2013 (GM-MM-S) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.54034-54035 OF 2013.
***** THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These review petitions are filed seeking to review the order dated 26.08.2014, passed in W.P.Nos.53804-53805 of 2013, c/w. W.P.Nos.54034-54035 of 2013, in terms whereof the writ petitions were disposed off in terms of the joint memo.
2. The review petitions are filed on the ground that certain errors have occurred in the joint memo.
3. Therefore, the learned counsels were informed that since the orders were passed based on the joint submission, the review petitions cannot be entertained unless yet another joint submission or a joint memo is filed. That an order on a joint memo cannot be interfered unilaterally. For that purpose, time was granted to the petitioner’s counsel.
4. As on date, there is no joint submission or a joint memo filed. In view of the fact that the order under review is passed under a joint submission of both sides, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the records, that calls for interference.
Consequently, review petitions are dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ