IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 445 of 2009(N) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34781/2008 Dated 19/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------- PERUMBAVOOR AREA COMMITTEE OF ERNAKULAM JILLA AUTORIKSHAW DRIVERS ASSOCIATION (CITU), REGD. NO.305/86 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY- M.I. BEERAS PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS IN WPC --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.N.ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, 'ARUNALAYAM', PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. DISTRICT COLLCTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL) ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD AND BRIDGES DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, ALUVA. 5. SECRETARY, PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC FOR R5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No. 445 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 34781 OF 2008 (N) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 O R D E R The main grievance of the review petitioner, who was not a party to the writ petition is about the observation in the 5th para of the judgment to the effect that Ext.R4(a) does not indicate that there is an approved auto stand in front of the writ petitioner's building at the M.C.Road. It is submitted that this inference was drawn on the basis of Exts.R4(a)and (b) and that Ext.R4(b) is an incorrect sketch. According to the petitioner, M.C.Road lies north- south and not east-west as indicated in Ext.R4(b) sketch. 2. Irrespective of the correctness of the factual contention that is now raised, the operative portion of the judgment shows that the direction is that there shall not be any vehicle parking obstructing ingress and egress to the petitioner's building. The observation in the judgment referring to Ext.R4(a) does not in any manner affect such conclusion and therefore the said observation is immaterial in so far as the final conclusion in the judgment is concerned. RP No.445/09 IN WP(C) No.34781/08 :2 : 3. Therefore, I do not find any reason to review the judgment and the review petition is dismissed. Be that as it may, it is clarified that in any subsequent proceedings, if the question as to whether there is any approved auto parking in M.C.Road arises, it will be open to the petitioner or anybody else to urge this contention in that behalf irrespective of the aforesaid observation in the judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp