IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 927 of 2009(V) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.21189/2001 Dated 11/07/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN OP: -------------------------------------------------------- K.J.ALEXANDER KOIKKAPARAMBIL, KOZHENCHERY, REP. BY M.J.ABRAHAM, NAMAKKUZHIKKAL HOUSE THEKKUMALA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.GEORGE G.POOTHICOTE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOZHENCHERRY, REP. BY SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY. 4. GOVT. OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.RAMESH K.P.SATHEESAN, SC SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.DIPU.R FOR R1 SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.K.S.HARIDAS FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- R.P. No.927 OF 2009 IN O.P. No. 21189 OF 2001 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to issue building permit to the petitioner. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 11.7.2006, it was dismissed as infructuous in the light of the submission that the writ petition has become infructuous. In this review petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the said judgment on the ground that neither the petitioner nor his counsel had made a submission that the writ petition has become infructuous and therefore, the judgment dismissing the writ petition as infructuous is liable to be reviewed. 2. The judgment delivered on 11.7.2006 whereby the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous does not state that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous. In such circumstances, as the dispute relates to the issuance of a building permit, which has not so far been issued to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the judgment RP No.927/09 2 dismissing the writ petition as infructuous is to be recalled. The review petition is accordingly allowed and the judgment dated 11.7.2006 dismissing the writ petition as infructuous is recalled. The Registry is directed to post the writ petition for hearing as per roster. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps RP No.927/09 3 P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- O R D E R R.P. No.927 OF 2009 IN O.P. No. 21189 OF 2001 Dated 30th November, 2010 RP No.927/09 4 RP No.927/09 5