IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 R.P.No. 682 of 2008 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16705/2008 Dated 11/06/2008 ............................... PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ SUSY ANTONY, W/O.LATE ANTONY, KUTTUNGAL HOUSE, NEAR ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, VADUTHALA.P.O, KOCHI-23. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH (ROY) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. VIJAYAMMA, VIJAYA NIVAS, 47/1425, KUNNUMEL ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 2. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI. S. RAMESH BABU, SC FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== R.P.NO. 682 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 16705 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The 2nd respondent in WP(C) No.16705/2008 is the review petitioner. It is contended that by Annexure A1 order passed by the Government of Kerala, controversy regarding the construction made by the 1st respondent herein was given a finality and therefore, the unauthorized construction made by the 1st respondent is liable to be demolished. It is contended that by the judgment in the writ petition, since this Court permitted the 1st respondent to file an appeal, under the cover of that order, attempt of the 1st respondent is to reopen the issues which have become final as between the parties. 2. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the review petitioner and the 1st respondent herein. 3. In the writ petition, the grievance raised by the 1st respondent was that the Corporation was attempting to implement an order without serving a copy. When the matter was taken up for consideration, it was informed that the copy of the order was served and at that stage, this RP 682/08 :2 : Court only observed that if the writ petitioner was aggrieved by the order served on her, the course open to her was to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. 4. Such an observation cannot be understood as one pronouncing on the maintainability or sustainability of the appeal which are entirely for the concerned authorities to appreciate and decide. Since statute provides an appellate remedy, even in the absence of an observation, the 1st respondent could have pursued that remedy. 5. Therefore, the judgment cannot be taken as one confirming any additional remedy or permitting the writ petitioner to reopen issues which are closed as between the parties. 6. It is clarified that if any appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent herein, it is for the Appellate Authority to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate order thereon. With these clarifications, review petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp