IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 307 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33359/2007 Dated 20/02/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- JUBARI, TC 39/2199 (4), ATTAKKULANGARA, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 AND 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL AZEEZ, TC 49/1060, ATTAKULANGARA, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER (VIGILANCE), LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RP No.307/08 7. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 ADV.MR.M.SREEKUMAR R2, R3, R6 & R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R4-R5 BY SR. ADV. MR.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.307 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.33359 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 14th March, 2008 ORDER Mr.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil persuades me for reviewing my judgment dated 20.2.2008 to the extent of deleting the words 'final orders of demolition' in the last but two sentences in my judgment. According to him, if those words are allowed to remain in that sentence, there is a likelihood of the Corporation misconstruing the judgment as one insisting that the Corporation shall pass final orders of demolition. Though I do not find any warrant for exercising jurisdiction for reviewing my judgment, considering the apprehension voiced by Mr.George Varghese, I make it clear that this court has not insisted by the judgment that the Corporation shall pass final orders of demolition. The decision shall be that of the Corporation. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE