Rajith M.K vs Rajith M.K
2021 Latest Caselaw 2519 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

   THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

            RP.No.41 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 32974/2019

   JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32974/2019(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
                        DATED 3.2.2020
                      ------------------

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 :-

      1     RAJITH M.K.,
            MALIYEKAL HOUSE, KOTHANALLOOR,
            KOTTAYAM - 686 632.

      2     SAJIMON M.M.
            AANIKKATTIL HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA,
            KOTTAYAM - 686 603.

      3     SAJO THOMAS
            PAZHAYIDATH OMALLOOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 603.

      4     BENNY THUMBASSERIYIL
            KOTHANALLOOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 632.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.JOHN VARGHESE
            SRI.P.M.JOSEPH

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 :-

      1     JINTO KURIAKOSE, AGED 50 YEARS
            THOTTATHIKUZHIYIL, KOTHANALLOOR, VAIKOM,
            KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
            HOLDER JESSY JIJI, THOTTATHIKUZHIYIL,
            KOTHANALOOR, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 632.

      2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

      3     DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
            KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

      4     REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
            KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

      5     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            POLICE STATION, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM - 686 604.
 RP.No.41/2021 IN WP(C). 32974/2019

                                 -: 2 :-

       6      MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
              MANJOOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 603.



     THIS  REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING  BEEN   FINALLY  HEARD   ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.41/2021 IN WP(C). 32974/2019

                                  -: 3 :-


                             O R D E R

Dated this the 21st day of January 2021

This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment

dated 3.2.2020. The said judgment only recorded the submission of

the official respondents that the autorickshaw stand in front of the

petitioner's establishment had been removed. There is no finding on

merits in the judgment. I, therefore, find that there is nothing to be

reviewed in the judgment. The review petition fails and the same is,

accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY//

P. A. TO JUDGE

Jvt/22.1.2021