IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 RP.No. 1098 of 2008(W) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26234/2008 Dated 01/09/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ RIJU MUKUNDAN, S/O MUKUNDAN, THEVARATHOPPU VEEU, TB JUNCTION, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.T. RAMER, S/O. THIRUKODI, NADAR, SELVI VESSELS, PARVATHIPURAM GRAMOM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ATTINGAL, MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ATTINGAL. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.AJ.VARGHESE SRI.S.D.ASOKAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== R.P.No.1098 of 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 26234 OF 2008 (W) ==================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The review is sought by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was disposed of directing reconsideration of an application for licence made by the writ petitioner. Such an order was passed in view of the fact that the rejection of the application for licence was on account of the interim order passed in a writ petition, which was later disposed of resulting in automatic vacation of the same. It was on account of this, that despite the pendency of an appeal, an order of reconsideration was passed. Therefore, I am not satisfied that any mistake has been committed in directing consideration of the application. Further, it is also informed by the counsel for the writ petitioner that pursuant to the judgment, renewal application has been allowed and fee has been remitted on 13/10/2008. 3. Though the counsel for the review petitioner contended that such a decision to renew the application for licence was taken by the RP 1098/08 [WPC 26234/08(W)] :2 : Municipality without giving him any notice as directed by this court, it is up to the review petitioner to pursue his remedy against the decision of the Municipality. Review petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp