Augustin Jose vs Alex Jacob
2022 Latest Caselaw 12247 Ker

RP NO. 1285 OF 2022                  1



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944
                            RP NO. 1285 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 38144/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                    KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

      1        AUGUSTIN JOSE, S/O GEORGE
               AGED 46 YEARS, KUNNUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMALI, IDUKKI
               685509

               BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR



RESPONDENT/S:

      1        ALEX JACOB, S/O JACOB, AGED 50 YEARS, KAVALAM
               PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY 686 101

      2        THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI,
               REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., IDUKKI
               685503

      3        GINS KURIAN, CHENNATTUMATTAM, KATTAPPANA P.O.,
               KATTAPPANNA 685 508


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR R1, SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.GP




       THIS     REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 1285 OF 2022              2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    ---------------------------------------
                 Review Petition No. 1285 of 2022
                  ------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2022


                             JUDGMENT

This Review Petition is filed to review the judgment dated

25.11.2022 in W.P.(C.) No. 38144 of 2022. The main grievance

of the review petitioner is that he is not made a party in this

writ Petition. According to him, he is a necessary party. But in

direction No.2 of the judgment, it is clearly stated that the 1 st

respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,

the 2nd respondent and other affected parties. If that is the case,

the 1st respondent is bound to hear the review petitioner also,

because he is an affected party.

2. The next point raised by the review petitioner is that

this Court only directed to consider Ext.P3 representation in

which the prayer is to take steps to see that the 2 nd respondent

in the writ petition is adhering to the time schedule. The review

petitioner submitted that the 1 st respondent now issued

Annexure-A1 timing conference notice. I make it clear that the

1st respondent only need to consider the grievance raised by the

writ petitioner in Ext.P3 and need not consider to change the

timing of the review petitioner or any body at this stage. The 1 st

respondent will give notice to the review petitioner also before

deciding the matter as directed by this Court. On all other

aspects, the judgment will stand.

With the above observation, this review petition is disposed

of.

SD/-

                                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
                                             JUDGE
SKS





                        APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS    :

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY   OF   THE    NOTICE   REGARDING   THE
TIMING CONFERENCE.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS    :    NIL