IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 RP.No. 9 of 2008(K) IN W.P.(C)NO. 29084/2007 ------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------- KULATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UCHAKKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ 1. M/S.THOMAS HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA PVT. LTD., POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695525, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHAJI THOMAS. 2. SHAJI THOMAS, S/O.M.K.THOMMAN, MANJANKAL HOUSE, KAKKANADU LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 3. THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY & DIRECTOR, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.NO. 9 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C)No.29084 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9TH JANUARY, 2008 ORDER The Panchayath seeks review of my judgment on the ground that it was on account of a bona fide omission that its standing counsel could not be present when the case was taken up for disposal. Considering the above submission, I have heard the parties again in the writ petition. Mr. Jaju Babu, counsel for the review petitioner submits what the petitioner is objecting to is the direction that the decision shall be taken by the Panchayath on Ext.P7 in the light of Ext.P6. Ext.P6 according to the learned counsel, does not contemplate construction of bridges across public canals. Sri. James Vincent, learned counsel for the respondent in the writ petition does not agree. According to him, the bridge that is proposed is a bridge within the campus of the writ petitioner. He has also relied on the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.5038/2002. The directions I have given in the judgment is only to take up Ext.P7 and decide the same taking into consideration of Ext.P6 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court and all relevant materials. It is open to the Panchyath to have a correct interpretation of Ext.P6 by taking decision on Ext.P7. The decision as directed already shall be taken R.P.No. 9/2008 -2- within two weeks from today. The Review petition is disposed of as above. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ks. R.P.No. 9/2008 -3-