IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 968 of 2008(N) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20510/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- 1. KUNNUMMEL BLOCK PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KUNNUMMEL BLOCK PANCHAYATH KUNNUMMEL, VATTOLI (VIA) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 2. THE PRESIDENT KUNNUMMEL BLOCK PANCHAYATH KUNNUMMEL VATTOLI (VIA) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 3. THE SECRETARY KUNNUMMEL BLOCK PANCHAYATH KUNNUMMEL VATTOLI (VIA) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.A.ABDUL HARIS, S/O. M.A.MOHAMMED KUNHI HAJI GOVT. CONTRACTOR, MUNAMBATH HOUSE CHENGALA P.O.,KASARGODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. -------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.968/2008 IN R.P.NO.968/2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008. O R D E R Review is sought for by the petitioner mainly contending that, the writ petition was filed at a time when the power of attorney holder of the writ petitioner had already approached this court and had filed WP(c).No.17592/2008 and for the same relief a second writ petition was filed during the pendency of the earlier one. Though factually, the averment is correct, it is seen that the pendency of the earlier writ petition has been disclosed in the writ petition. It is also a fact that on 9.7.2008, the earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In view of this, I do not think it necessary to review the judgment. Review Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/