IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 386 of 2008(D) --------------------- PETITIONE: -------------- SCARIA MATHAI, S/O.SKARIA, AGED 71 YEARS PUTHUPPADY (HOUSE), PERINGOL P.O. KOLENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VIJAY CONSTRUCTIONS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, MYKULANGARA KINGINIMATTOM P.O., KOLENCHERRY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.P. ITTOOP. 2. AYIKARNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KADAYIRIPPU P.O., KOLENCHERRY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY AYIKARANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KADAYIRIPPU P.O., KOLENCHERRY BY P. FAZIL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- R.P.No.386/2008 in W.P.(C) NO. 8437 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April , 2008 O R D E R I had disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage itself directing the Panchayat to register Ext.P10 application submitted by the petitioner and to consider the same in the light of the petitioner's contentions based on Section 233 B(d) and also Ext.P11 after hearing the petitioner as well as the third respondent. The third respondent has filed this Review Petition pointing out that the licence for the machine in question is to be regulated not by Section 233B(d), but by entires in category Nos. 83 & 117 of Schedule 1 of Rule 3 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules 1996. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.P.Fazil the learned counsel for the respondents and Sri.Paul K.Varghese, the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Sri.Fazil submits that it is not necessary that this court decides the merits of the grounds raised in the writ petition at this stage since what has been done by this R.P. No.386/2008 2 court ultimately under the judgment is only to direct the Panchayat to take a decision on the licence application after hearing both sides. Sri.Paul K.Varghese would submit that the observation that the machine in question is covered under Section 233B(d) will stand in the way of the Panchayat appreciating and accepting the contention of the third respondent that the machine is not covered by Section 233 B (d) of the Act. 3. Having regard to the rival submissions addressed at the bar, I dispose of this review petition clarifying that the Panchayat does not have to be influenced by the observation I have made in my judgment with reference to Section 233B(d) of the Panchayat Raj Act. It is open to the Panchayat to take a decision after hearing both sides, as directed in the judgment, taking into account directions already issued in W.P.(C) No.8437/2008 also. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk R.P. No.386/2008 3