IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 622 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20070/2009 Dated 18/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 5&6 IN WPC ------------------------------------ 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC,KOLLAM CORPORATIO RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-4 IN WPC ------------------------- 1. JAMES JOSEPH, MALIEAKAL HOUSE N0.72, ARADHANA NAGAR, KOLLAM-691001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.622 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.20070 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner. I have also gone through the review petition. In my opinion, even without placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Nazar v. Malappuram Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 92), which was reviewed later, the writ petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the review petition. The Review Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.