IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 697 of 2010(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.19161/2010 Dated 06/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ K.NANU, S/O. KANNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, KAIRALI HOUSE, PUTHIYARAKKARA, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ 1. C.H.KUNHIKRISHNA KURUP, S/O. KANARAKURUP AGED 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVAKULAYAM, MALAPRARMBA HOUSING COLONY, CHEVAYUR,KOZHIKODE-14. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R2 SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM-R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- R.P. NO.697 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.19161 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 ORDER The second respondent in the above captioned Writ Petition has filed this Review Petition to review the judgment dated 6.7.2010 in W.P. (C).NO.19161/2010 and to dismiss the said Writ Petition. As per the said judgment, this Court directed the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 appeal preferred by the petitioner in the Writ Petition with notice to the writ petitioner and also the second respondent/review petitioner herein. 2. This review petition has been filed contending that subsequent to the disposal of the Writ Petition, this Court passed an interim order in R.S.A.No.759/2010. The said order is produced herein as Annexure-A.. Paragraph 3 of Annexure-A order would make it clear that the judgment dated 6.7.2010 was brought to the notice of this Court while passing the said order. It is made clear therein that the said order would not preclude the DPI from taking any decisions on Ext.P1 appeal in accordance with law and in terms of the order issued by this Court in W.P.(C). NO.19161/2010. That apart, the review petition did not make out any R.P. NO.697/2010 in W.P.(C).19161/2010 2 error that is apparent on the face of the records warranting interference under the review jurisdiction. Evidently, the attempt on the part of the review petitioner is to get the judgment re-written. There is no merit in the review petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc R.P. NO.697/2010 in W.P.(C).19161/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010