IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 102 of 2009(R) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36063/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKUDY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- K.V.PAULOSE, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, UNIT CHALAKUDY. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------ R.P.102/2009 IN W.P.(C)No.36063/2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 ORDER I have heard Mr.P.Santhalingam, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner and Sri.S.R.Dayananda Prabhu, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.P.Santhalingam would submit that pursuant to the directions in the judgment in WPC No.36063/2004, the Municipality heard both sides and passed an order that it is not desirable to allow either of the groups of the Thrissur District Motor Transport Operators Association to retain possession of the room. The learned senior counsel further submitted that direction in the judgment in WPC No.36063/2004 was that after hearing both sides, the Municipality has to decide as to which among the two groups is eligible to retain the room. There is controversy at the Bar as to whether in compliance of the directions in the judgment, the Municipality heard both sides and take decision. Mr.Santhalingam, learned senior counsel submits that decision has been taken in accordance with the directions in the judgment. Mr. S.R.Dayananda Prabhu submits that no hearing notice has been issued to his client group. According to him, directions in the judgment in WPC 36063/2004 have not been complied with so far. Either way, in my opinion, no case is made out by the review petitioner for reviewing the judgment. Considering the submissions of Mr.S.R.Dayananda Prabhu that no hearing notice was issued by the Municipality to his client, I dispose of the review petition directing the review petitioner Municipality to issue hearing notice to both sides once again, hear them and take a decision early and at any rate within six weeks of receiving a copy of this order. Once decision is taken, the same will be communicated to both the groups. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk