IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 253 of 2010(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15751/2009 Dated 10/02/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- P.K.APPUKUTTAN, S/O.APPAKUTTAN, PERINGATTU HOUSE, VYLATHOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. SC SRI. K.K. CANDRAN PILLAI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.253/2010 in W.P.(C) NO.15751OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 O R D E R By judgment dated 10th February, 2010, the writ petition was dismissed and the Petitioner was directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Municipality. As is evident from the judgment, cost was imposed for the reason that by virtue of the interim order obtained by the petitioner from Ombudsman and this Court, Municipality was prevented from inducting the tenant in to the building and that finally when the case came up for hearing the petitioner got the writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. 2. This review has been filed by the petitioner contending that the said order is erroneous. According to the petitioner in terms of the auction notice the Municipality ought to have inducted tenant on 1.4.2009. It is stated that Ombudsman ordered status quo only on 20th April, 2009 and therefore, if the Municipality was vigilant, they had time till 20th April, 2009 to induct the tenant. According to the learned counsel the stay granted by this court was only on 9.6.2009 and that too was only for a period of one month. It is stated that the stay expired thereafter and was revived only on R.P.No.253/2010 :2 : 10.8.2009. According to him, during the interregnum also the Municipality could have inducted the tenant. It is therefore contended that loss, if any, caused is due to Municipality's own default for which petitioner should not have been penalized. 3. Even if it is assumed that the Municipality did not induct the tenant before 20th of April, 2009 as contended by the learned counsel, that is not a justification for preventing the Municipality for the subsequent period. As far as the case of the petitioner that the stay granted by this court expired on 8.7.2009 and that the Municipality had time till 10.8.2009, when the stay was revived, I must say that the said submission is factually incorrect. Records of this case show that initially stay was granted for a period of one month from 9.6.2009 and this order was extended for a period of two months by order dated 30.6.2009. Thereafter by order dated 10.8.2009, status quo was ordered to be maintained and this order continued until the writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 10.2.2010. In the circumstances I do not find any merit in the Review Petition. Review Petition fails and is dismissed. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE R.P.No.253/2010 :3 :