IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 799 of 2009(E) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18685/2009 Dated 20/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ M.NAGOOR MEERA, D/O.MUHAMMED BEEVI, NOOHU BUNGLOW, M.N.TOWER, ALUMMOODU JUNCTION, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. MR.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN WPC. ------------------------------- 1. M.SUDHAKARAN, SECRETARY, CONVENT ROAD RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION (REG.NO.T.482/07) ALUMMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.23220/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... R.P.799/09 in W.P.(C).18685/09 & W.P.(C).23220/09 ....................... Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 ORDER Petitioner in the Review Petition was the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).18685/2009. By the judgment under review, this Court had directed respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition to implement Ext.P3 order by which there was a direction to the licensee, the 4th respondent, to shift the A.R.D shop run by her from the existing premises to another non objectionable premises. Reason for such shifting, was that there is a Liquor retail shop being run in the same shopping complex where the licensed retail shop was also being run. 2. Writ petition was disposed of before notice to the licensee, the 4th respondent, in the Writ Petition. Thereafter, Review Petition has been filed contending that the petitioner should have been heard before a direction was issued to implement Ext.P3. In the meanwhile, a further direction was issued to the licensee to shift the ration shop which has been challenged in W.P.(C). 23220/2009. R.P.799/2009 2 3. I heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C). 18685/2009. 4. I find force in the submission made by the review petitioner that an order directing implementation of Ext.P3 should have been passed after notice to the review petitioner also. 5. In the result, Review Petition is allowed and the judgment dated 20.7.2009 in W.P.(C).18685/2009 is set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the license of the review petitioner has been suspended on 18.8.2009, after the review petition was filed and the same had been boarded before this Court. He produced before me a copy of the proceedings of the Taluk Supply Officer. It is open to the licensee to seek a R.P.799/2009 3 revocation of suspension. It is made clear that if an application for revocation of suspension is filed or an appeal is filed, the appellate authority or the original authority, before whom the motion of revocation of suspension is made, shall consider such plea without being influenced by the fact that the licensee had not shifted the shop as on 18.8.2009. In other words, said authority shall take note of the present judgment in W.P. (C).18685/2009 and the direction to re-consider the issue of shifting after notice to the licensee also, in the course of taking a decision on the plea for revocation of suspension. W.P.(C).23220/2009 In view of the fact that the judgment in W.P.(C). 18685/2009 has been reviewed, no further orders are necessary in W.P.(C).23220/2009 except to make it clear that the implementation of Ext.P3 in the said writ petition shall abide by the fresh orders to be passed by the R.P.799/2009 4 District Supply Officer as directed in Review Petition No. 799/2009. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs