IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 814 of 2011(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27764/2011 Dated 24/10/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 6TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED (FACT), REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL- 683 501. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): /PETITIONERS AND OTHER RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, FORMER MEMBER, THIRUVAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDING AT THERAMPILLIL IRIMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 309. 2. SANJEEV KUMAR.M., CHANAYIL HOUSE, TOLL GATE ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 230. 3. ROAD SAFETY COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 4. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 5. SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 7. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 8. ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICER, ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030. MR.GEORGE MECHERIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... R.P.No.814 of 2011 in WP(C) No.27764 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This review petition is filed on the apprehension that the observation in the judgment that transport of ammonia stored at very low temperature during day time is unsafe is based on the admission by the review petitioner's counsel. The apprehension expressed was the view of the Court and we still stand by the same. However, we dispose of the Review Petition by clarifying that the findings, directions or observations in the judgment are that of the Court and not based on any admission or submission of review petitioner's counsel. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg