IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 580 of 2010(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15214/2010 Dated 26/05/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: 2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- MADAKATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ACKARAPPURAM, KURICHIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-28, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. JAYAPRAKASH T., S/O.BHARATHI AMMA, AGED 44 YEARS, KUTTIMUKKU, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR-680631. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, THRISSUR. BY ADV.SHRI E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- R.P.No.580 OF 2010 in W.P.(C)No.15214 of 2010 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2010 O R D E R Heard the parties. This Review Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the observation made by this Court in W.P.(C)No.15214/10 that the 2nd respondent Panchayat has not entered appearance in spite of receipt of notice. 2. It is explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was entrusted with the vakalath; but because of certain personal difficulties, he could not appear on that day and arrangements could not be made to make representation also. 3. In the light of the above, the second paragraph of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.15214/10 is deleted and the judgment will stand modified to that extent. The Review Petition is ordered as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn