IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 292 of 2010(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.7231/2010 Dated 09/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ R.RAMAKRISHNAN,M/S.NARMADA,K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SENIOR TOWN PLANNER(VIGILANCE), DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, KOTTARATHIL BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 4. BABU JOHN, SKY JWELLERY, PALATHUMPATTU HOUSE, THITTAMEL KARA, CHENGANNUR PO, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NINAN JOHN. BY GP K.R. DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- R.P. 292/2010 in W.P.(C).7231/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 ORDER The writ petition filed by the 4th respondent was disposed of by judgment dated 9.3.2010, after hearing the review petitioner also, directing the 2nd respondent herein to pass orders on the representations made by both parties, pursuant to which they were also heard on 17.2.2010. 2. Subsequently this Review Petition is filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition, contending mainly that under the cover of the representation and the judgment, what is sought to be achieved by the writ petitioner was to get the building permit issued by the Secretary of the Kottayam Municipality invalidated by the Government for which the Government does not have any power. 3. A reading of the judgment shows that this Court has only directed the Secretary to decide on the representation made. It was also clarified that this Court did not express anything on the merits of the contentions raised. Therefore if at all the review R.P.292/10 2 petitioner has a case that the issue canvassed by the writ petitioner before the Government was something beyond the jurisdiction of the Government, it is always open to the review petitioner to canvass that issue and it is also open to the Government to decide on the issue in accordance with law. This freedom of the Government is not in any manner affected by the direction in this judgment 4. Insofar as the specific apprehension of the review petitioner that by the representation what is sought to be achieved by the writ petitioner was to get the proceedings of the Secretary which are appealable before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, invalidated by the Government, it is clarified that by the judgment under review, this Court does not confer jurisdiction on the Government to decide or pass orders on any issue on which it otherwise does not have jurisdiction. Clarifying the matter as above, Review Petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs