IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 334 of 2011(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.282/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 IN W.P. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAYED MOHAMMED KOYA, S/O.BIYYAMMADA ATTAKOYA, PURAKKAD, AMINI ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN W.P. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PATHUMMADA NADUVILAKAM KUNHI, S/O.ABDUL KADER KOYA, CLERK, P.W.D.,AMINI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP, BY REGISTERED (MUKTHIYAR) POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MADALAPPURA KUNHI KOYA, AGED 73 YEARS,S/O.POOKOYA HAJI,RESIDING AT AMMINI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP-682 552. 2. THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, KADMAT ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP-682550. 3. THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER, KAVARATTI ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP-682553. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC FOR LAKSHADWEEP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.334 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 282 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 O R D E R WP(C) No.282/11 was filed by the 1st respondent. That writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the review petitioner by judgment dated 5th of January, 2011 directing the 2nd respondent herein to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 in the writ petition. 2. In this review petition, it is pointed out that the said direction was issued without taking note of the fact that Second Appeal No.1/2008/ADM filed against Ext.P1 was pending before the Administrator. It is on this ground the review of the judgment is sought for. 3. Heard Sri.Krishna Kumar, counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 4. It is not of dispute that the pendency of the aforesaid second appeal was not noticed at the time when the writ petition was disposed of. The omission to point out the said fact, either in R.P.No.334/11 :2 : the pleadings or during the arguments, is now explained by the 1st respondent pointing out that the said fact was not within their knowledge. 5. Be that as it may, now that the second appeal mentioned above is pending, the only clarification that is required is that finalisation of proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order as directed in the judgment will be subject to the outcome of the appeal No.1/2008/ADM pending before the Administrator. With the above clarification, the Review Petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp