IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
RP.No.854 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9050/2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9050/2019(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
THE CHAIRPERSON, NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY, NILAMBUR
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENTS:
1 FATHIMA BEEVI
AGED 56 YEARS
D/O. ALAVIKUTTY, KANNATTIL HOUSE, VAISHNAV APARTMENT,
FLAT NO.5A, VALIYAPARAMBU ROAD, KEERTHI NAGAR,
ELAMAKARA, KOCHI , PIN - 682026.
2 NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY
NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 THE SECRETARY
NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679329.
4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
L.S.G.D SECTION, NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY, NILAMBUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329.
5 THE DIRECTOR,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT DIRECTORATE, SWARAJ BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
NANDANKODU, KAVADIYAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695004.
6 SHANAVAS P.Y
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. YUSUF, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VALLAPPUZHA,
NILAMBUR AMSOM, NILAMBUR DESOM, NILAMBUR R.S.P.O,
NILAMBUR - 679330, THACHAMATATHIL, KOLLICKAL,
PIRAVOM P O, PIN - 686664.
RP.No.854 OF 2020 IN WP(C).9050/2019
2
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
SRI. ALEXANDER GEORGE - SC, SRI. MATHEW GEORGE
VADAKKEL - SR.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.854 OF 2020 IN WP(C).9050/2019
3
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking a review of the judgment dated 25/09/2019 asserting that the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and recorded therein are not correct.
I am afraid that I cannot accede to the request afore made by the review petitioner, because if a building permit has been granted to the writ petitioner and the property in question has been removed from the Asset Register of the Municipality illegally, it is upto the parties to challenge it appropriately and such liberty is always available to them, since I have not dealt with any of the said aspects on its merits in the judgment in question.
I am, therefore, of the view that this review petition is unnecessary and it is, therefore, closed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/7.1.2021 RP.No.854 OF 2020 IN WP(C).9050/2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF WP(C) NO. 23465 OF 2020 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
MC
(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE