IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 903 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24081/2011 Dated 22/09/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): R8 ------------------------ VARGHESE, S/O.SAVIER, MALADATH HOUSE, THRIKOOR DESOM, THRIKOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND R1-7 ---------------------------------- 1. ST.ANTHONY'S CHURCH, THRIKOOR DESOM, THRIKOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR FATHER JENSE THATTIL. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (CENTRAL ZONE), O/O. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NEAR SHAKTHAN THAMPURAN BUS STAND, THRISSUR-680001. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003. 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680307. 7. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680301. 8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 301. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. RAJESH CHAKYAT THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ R.P.No.903 of 2011 in W.P.(C) NO. 24081 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though the learned counsel for the review petitioner, who was the 8th respondent in the writ petition, addressed very fervent submissions, we are of the view that no case is made out for invocation of this court's jurisdiction for reviewing its own orders and judgments. Jurisdiction for review is very narrow. We do not find any infirmity about the judgment which we had passed in the writ petition. The complaint of the review petitioner, who was the 8th respondent in the writ petition, seems to be that certain conditions which had been imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail to the Vicar of the first respondent church has been violated by him. If what the petitioner says is correct, the petitioner's remedy lies elsewhere. The Review Petition will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk W.P.(C) No. /2011 2