IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 R.P.No. 124 of 2010 in W.ANo.2738 OF 2009 REVIEW PETITIONERS / APPELLANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANANTHAWADY, WAYANAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NILAMBUR NORTH DIVISION, NILAMBUR. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- K.P.NOUSHAD, S/O.KOYAMOTTY, KONDESHANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KONDOTTY -P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.124 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of February 2010 ORDER Basheer, J. Divisional Forest Officers of Mananthawady and Nilambur North Divisions have filed this petition seeking review of the judgment dated December 3, 2009 in Writ Appeal No.2738/09. 2. We have heard Sri.M.P.Prakash, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) and Sri.Jacob Muricken, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. A perusal of the grounds raised in the review petition reveals that several new contentions are now sought to be projected in the case. Petitioners have produced several documents also along with the review petition. It is conceded by the learned Special Government Pleader that these materials could not be brought to the notice of either the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench earlier. However, while referring to two earlier Government Orders it is stated that certain restrictions had been imposed for establishment of wood based industries within a radius of 5 Kms. from the forest. 4. It is further contented that certain other documents came to light after disposal of the writ appeal. It is stated in Paragraph 5 of the memorandum of Review Petition that Annexure 1 to 4 could not be R.P.No.124 OF 2010 :: 2 :: produced either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. According to the review petitioners, it was neither intentional nor deliberate. But no explanation has been offered as to how these documents escaped the attention of the two senior Forest Officials, like the petitioners. 5. Apart from all these, a perusal of the grounds urged in the review petition will undoubtedly show that the attempt of the petitioners is only to get a re-hearing of the case. The scope and ambit of a review petition is well delineated. The grounds urged by the petitioners will not fall in the realm of a review. Having carefully perused the averments in the review petition and having heard learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent, we do not find any merit in this review petition. It is therefore dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes