IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 344 of 2010(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5476/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITONER IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------------ ABDUL SALAM,S/O.MAMMAD,KARASSERY SUPER MARKET,MUKKOM.P.O-67 002,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKOM. 5. THE SECRETARY,MUKKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUKKOM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.P.J.MATHEW FOR R5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... R.P.344/2010 in W.P.(C).5476/2010 ....................... Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 ORDER The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 9.3.2010 recording the submission made on behalf of the Sub Inspector that a consensual decision was arrived at in a meeting held by the members of the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, Members of the Mukkom Unit and the Union members of the vehicles, which was convened by the Sub Inspector of Police. In this Review petition what is contended is that there was no such decision. 2. Learned Government Pleader has made available before me the instructions on the basis of which such a submission was made before this Court about the consensual decision. Relevant portion of the same reads as follows: “On receiving a complaint from Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, Mukkom Unit, a meeting was held on Mukkom police station with the members of Mukkom Grama Panchayat, members of Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi and Union members of vehicles. Unanimous R.P.344/10 2 decision was taken stating that only five goods autos will be parked instead of 25 goods autos in such a way that there is no blockage or hindrance to the entry of the vehicles or customers to the business establishments and instructions were given to the Panchayat to select suitable parking area for the parking of goods autos.” 3. Learned counsel for the Panchayat also confirms that such a unanimous decision was taken in the meeting. In the light of the above, the submission made by the learned Government Pleader cannot be said to be without any instructions from the Sub Inspector of police. Petitioner also has not produced any material to disprove this assertion. 4. Having regard to the unanimous decision stated to have been taken to which the petitioner also was a party, it is appropriate that the respondents, as directed in the judgment, will ensure that the same is complied with. Review Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs