IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 RP.No. 1115 of 2009(D) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26671/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 5TH RESPONDENT IN WPC. -------------------------------------- SMT.BABY CHANDAPILLAI, AGED 72 YEARS,W/O.LATE VERGHESE CHANDAPILLAI, KOLATH PUTHENCHERA HOUSE,PERUNNA EAST KARA, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC. ---------------------------- 1. K.R.JAYAPRAKASH,PADMA SREE, PERUNNA EAST,CHANGANASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROAD DIVISION,KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM. 5. THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.VANAJA MADHAVAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.1115/2009 in WP(C).26671/2009-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009. O R D E R This review petition is filed by the fifth respondent in WP(C).26671/2009 seeking review of the judgment issued in that case without hearing her. She further pleads that the writ petitioner had suppressed material facts, including a matter before the Division Bench in which the writ petitioner and review petitioner were parties. After hearing learned counsel on either side, it was noticed that the writ petitioner had apparently made a false statement, knowing that it is false. Accordingly, an order dated 10.12.2009 was issued stating that before proceeding to consider whether notice should be RP1115/09 -: 2 :- issued for initiating steps in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C., the writ petitioner would be given an opportunity to purge himself of the contempt committed by him. Following that order, he has appeared in person before this Court and has filed an affidavit dated 23.12.20009 tendering unconditional apology and seeking pardon for his laches. Though his averment is that the situation was out of a mistake of fact, that plea is not accepted in toto. However, the apology is accepted. The judgment sought to be reviewed has essentially been obtained without disclosing all relevant facts to this Court. The same cannot be permitted to stand. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 19.10.2009 in WP(C).26671/2009. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2412