IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1055 of 2010(V) IN W.P.(C) No.30573 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30573/2010 Dated 01/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 3TO 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.H.ABDUL RAZAK,KAMMADATH HOUSE, PERODE,NILESWAR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. C.H.ABDUL AZEEZ,KAMMADATH HOUSE, PERODE NILESWAR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. DR.MOHAMMED,KAMMADATH HOUSE, PERODE,NILESWAR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUBAIR.C.H,S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 45 YEARS,KAMMADATH HOUSE,PATTALAM, PARAPPA.P.O,KASARAGOD DISTRICT,PIN-671121. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,VELLARIKUNDU POLICE STATION,PARAPPA.P.O, KANJANGAD,KASARAGOD DISTRICT,PIN-671533. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARGOD DISTRICT,KASARAGOD P.O,PIN-671121. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ R.P.No.1055 of 2010-V in W.P.(c ) No.30573 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of December, 2010 O R D E R K.M.Joseph, J. This review petition is filed alleging that the writ petition was disposed of in the absence of respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition. This Court has issued notice by special messenger to respondents 3 to 5. There was no appearance for respondents 3 to 5 on the day on which the judgment was delivered. 2. We got a report from the special messenger. The messenger would state in the report that when he went to the house where the respondents 3 to 5 were residing they were not there and the petition was served on their elder sister who is residing with them in the same house in the presence of witness. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner also. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on RP No.1055/2010 -2- instructions from the 2nd respondent would submit that actually petitioners were in the locality of the concerned mobile tower and that the Ist petitioner in the review petition is residing in a different house. Having regard to the facts of the case we feel that interest of justice would be met if we review the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is reviewed. Post the writ petition on 14.12.2010. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS