IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 633 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10274/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- SAROJINI BALAKRISHNAN, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODASSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP SRI.MATHEWS RAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDEN, KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KODASSERY P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR-680 725. 2. THE KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KODASSERY P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR-680 725. 3. M.G.VINODAN, RESIDING AT MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MECHIRA, KODASSERY P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR-680 725. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, ALONG WITH RP NO. 634 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- R.P. Nos. 633 & 634 of 2011 in W.P.(c) No.10274 & 12054 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 ORDER Basant,J. The above writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 1/6/2011. The operative portion of the common judgment makes it clear that the parties shall be at liberty to agitate the matter before the civil court and before the Panchayat Committee. We had clearly not intended to fetter the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court and the Panchayat Committee to take appropriate decision on merits. 2. It is now submitted that an observation in paragraph-11 of the common judgment is likely to confuse the civil court and the Panchayat Committee of the scope of the observations in the operative portion. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner R.P. Nos. 633 & 634 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sri.V. Chitambaresh points out that in paragraph-11 of the common judgment the following sentence appears. The learned counsel apprehends that the said sentence may send a wrong message and confuse the Munsiff's Court/Panchayat Committee: “We are satisfied that the petitioner in W.P. (c) No.12054 of 2011 has all the requisite licences/permits for running the quarry.” We are satisfied that it has got to be made clear that the said observation was not intended to finally conclude the controversy. That observation was only to explain why specific directions were not being issued by this Court. To avoid the possibility of any doubt, we clarify that the said observation shall not in any way fetter the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court and the Panchayat Committee to come to an appropriate conclusion in the matters pending before them. 3. These review petitions are accordingly allowed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P. Nos. 633 & 634 of 2011 -: 3 :-