IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 RP.No. 1018 of 2008(B) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10932/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE MANAGER, PRESENTATION CONVENT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL VELLIKULANGAR, (VIA) KODAKARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.BLUE MOUNTAIN GRANTES, VELLIKULANGARA P.O. TRICHUR-680693, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER MATHEW M.PATHROSE. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, TRICHUR – 680002. 3. THE MATTATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MATTATHOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 692. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (R1) SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS (R2) SRI.DHANYA P.ASOKAN (R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ R.P.1018/2008 IN W.P.(C)No.10932/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 O R D E R Heard Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard the submissions of Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board and Sri.Dhanya Ashokan, learned standing counsel for the Panchayat. 2. The review petitioner, who is not a party to the writ petition, seeks review of my judgment on various grounds. At the bar it was submitted by Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam that the review petitioner is aggrieved mainly by the last clause i.e. clause 3 (iii) of Annexure-V judgment which is sought to be reviewed. According to him, that clause amounts to virtually cancelling Exts.P7 and P8 therein which have been produced as Annexures -I and II. As regards Annexure-II(Ext.P8), Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam submitted that the said order was issued R.P..No.1018/2008 2 by a statutory authority Panchayat with notice to all the concerned parties including the writ petitioner and the review petitioner and this court is not expected to set at naught that order in the writ petition in the absence of the beneficiary of that order the review petitioner. My attention was drawn by Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Action Council v. Benny Abraham (2002 (2) KLT 228 (SC). I must notice immediately that the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that in the circumstances which obtain in this case the review petitioner should have been made a party to the writ petition especially since challenge therein was against Ext.P8 also, has some appeal. But, I find that another learned Judge of this court in Annexure-IX judgment has considered Annexure-V judgment and has directed the Panchayat to take a decision on the application of the writ petitioner for licence only after hearing the review petitioner. In fact, the Headmistress of the review petitioner school got herself impleaded as additional third respondent in Annexure-IX case and it is only thereafter that this court disposed of the W.P.(C) No.17782/2008. Thus, in my R.P..No.1018/2008 3 opinion, the apparent damage done due to the non impleadment of the review petitioner in this writ petition has been to a certain extent undone by this court. As for the grievance of the petitioner that Ext.P8 order(Annexure-II) was passed after hearing the writ petitioner and the review petitioner and that this court was not justified in saying that the 2nd respondent – Panchayat should not be influenced at all by Exts.P7 and P8, I am inclined to clarify that the above direction (direction under clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of Annexure-V judgment) is intended to mean only that the 2nd respondent Panchayat should not be unduly influenced by Exts.P7 and P8, while taking decision on the licence application. It is further clarified that the Panchayat shall take into account all relevant materials while taking decision on the licence application and should take due note of all the submissions which may be addressed on behalf of the review petitioner during hearing. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk