IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 581 of 2010(G) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8708/2009 Dated 01/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.R.NARAYANAN NAIR, PERUMPILLI VEEDU, KALAMPOCRT, PIRAVOM. BY MR.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM, KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS1-4: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.N.BANU, THEKKUMKATTIL, MEVELLOOR, VELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 501. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682021. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661. 4. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. BY MR.K. RAMESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 TO R5. MS. MOLLY JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R1. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- Review Petition No.581 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) No.8708 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010. O R D E R Review petitioner is the 5th respondent in the writ petition. The grievance raised in the review petition is that the report of the Geologist mentioned in paragraph 6 of the judgment does not contain the correct facts and therefore, the directions issued by this Court have to be recalled. 2. Evidently, the 5th respondent had not filed any objection before this Court against the report filed by the Geologist. Apart from that it is not a case where this Court has straight away directed the District Collector to accept the report and to act upon the same. The report of the Geologist shows that the environmental impact assessment study has not been conducted by the Geologist. Therefore, this Court has ordered further action in the matter by directing that steps will be taken to have such a study for enabling the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders R.P. No.581/2010 2 and the same should get proper attention before any order is passed in the matter. In paragraph 12, it was also directed that appropriate orders will be passed after hearing rival parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Clearly, the petitioner can appear before the District Collector and submit his own version with regard to the report of the Geologist as well as other aspects of the matter. I am not satisfied that there is any apparent error in the judgment to entertain the review petition. This review petition is dismissed with the above observation. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp