IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 527 of 2009(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2346/2009 Dated 22/01/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- MOHAMMAD SHAFI,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.N.S.MOHAMMAD KUNJU, NEDUNGATTUKUDY HOUSE, OKKAL KARA, OKKAL P.O. CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN.683550 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE STATE ACT NO.28/2008)ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,REPRESTNED BY ITS CHAIRAMAN,THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI,ERNAKULAM. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI,ERNAKULAM. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.527 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No.2346 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of June, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner in the writ petition has filed this review petition. The points raised is that, in the judgment the 3rd respondent was directed to consider Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner, and that subsequently, it has come out from the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer that the District Level Authorised Committee, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, was not constituted. It is stated that this Court has thus issued a direction to a non-existing Committee, and to that extent the judgment is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. 2. It is the admitted position that Ext.P4 application was made to the 3rd respondent in the review petition, and that the 3rd respondent was not in existence at the time when the application was made. 3. If that be so, the direction requiring the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 is clearly erroneous, and therefore, the judgment in WP(C) No.2346/2009 is vitiated and hence the same is recalled. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg