The Mattannur Municipality vs Thahira.N.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 9263 Ker

                 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

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