IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 86 of 2011(B) -------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC. 35455/2009 Dated 12/01/2011) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- GEORGE JOSEPH, KOYICKAL HOUSE, CHERPUNKAL, PULIYANOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE VICAR, MAR SLEEBA CHURCH, CHERPUMKAL. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD, R & B DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, R & B DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 5. MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, ARAMPULICKAL HOUSE, CHERPUMKAL, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ R.P.No.86/2011 in W.P.(C) NO.35455/2009 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Heard the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, leaned counsel appearing for the first respondent, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4. 2. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 12th January, 2011, upholding the proposed revised alignment for the bridge across the Menachil River on the Cherpunkal-Kozhuvanal road. The main ground urged in the review petition is that while this court upheld the changed alignment for the said bridge, this court did not examine the impact of Ext.P9 and that this court also did not examine the reasons which persuaded the official respondents to change the alignment. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties and also having perused the judgment I am inclined to think that there is substance in what the petitioner contends. In that view of the matter, I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated by an error to the extent that is pointed out by the petitioner. R.P.No.86 /2011 :2 : Therefore, I allow the review petition and the judgment dated 12.1.2011 dismissing the writ petition is recalled. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/