IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
RP NO. 697 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 6492/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 THE MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY,
MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MATTANNOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670
702 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON
2 THE SECRETARY
MATTANNOOR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
MATTANNOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 702
BY ADV P.V.ANOOP
RESPONDENTS:
1 THAHIRA.N.P
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. ABDUL BASHEER, GAREEB NAWAS, KOLARI AMSOM,
KALLOOR DESOM, MATTANNOOR P.O, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 702
2 ABDUL BASHEER
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, GAREEB NAWAS, KOLARI AMSOM,
KALLOOR DESOM, MATTANNOOR P.O, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 702
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 697 OF 2022
2
ORDER
This application for review has been filed by writ respondent Nos.2 and 3, asserting that the record of their absence, in paragraph No.3 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, is not accurate since even though the engagement on behalf of their counsel had already been registered with the Registry of this Court, his name was not shown in the cause list when it was published.
2. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this Review Petition and am of the view that the absence of the review petitioners when the judgment was delivered, is certainly deserving of being condoned.
3. However, I must say that whether the petitioners herein were present or otherwise, the directions in the judgment would not have been any different. Pertinently the learned counsel for the petitioners - Sri.Anoop P.V., conceded that his clients are not aggrieved by the directions of this RP NO. 697 OF 2022 3 Court.
4. At this time, Sri. Varghese C.Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent, submitted that, in fact, the directions in the judgment have already been complied with; and that the resultant order has also been challenged by his client.
In the afore circumstances, I close this Review Petition, recording that the absence of the petitioners herein was not the reason why the directions therein were issued.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB