IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1067 of 2009(T) (AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 21/10/2009 IN WP(C) NO.29792/2009) ---------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S): /PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. VELAYUDHAN P., (RETD. S.I. OF POLICE, 1394 MM), S/O.KORAN, SAVIJAM HOUSE, MANGATIRI P.O. TIRUR - 5, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. P.GOPALAN, (RETD A.S.I. OF POLICE, M 1395) S/O.KUNHI, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTHIRIPARAMBA, P.O.VALLUVAMBRAM, VIA MONGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 651 3. A.KUMARAN, (RETD ASI M.1407), MADHAVI NILAYAM, TRIKKALANGODE P.O. MANJERI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. V.T.SHYAMASUNDARAN, (RETD S.I OF POLICE, M.1384), S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, NANDANAM HOUSE, GRUVETTY P.O., ELAYOOR, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENT(S): /RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT HOME (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RP NO.1067/2009 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.1067 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 29792 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Heard. 2. The petitioners submit that instead of a decision on merits, all that they wanted was a direction for consideration of their representation, which was made to the authorities. It may be true that the petitioners only wanted a direction for consideration of their representation, but such a direction is called for only if there is a case to be examined by the respondents. This Court was satisfied that the petitioners did not make out a case for examination, and it was therefore that the writ petition was dismissed. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for review of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg