IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 324 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.2121/10 IN WPC.4460/2010 Dated 22/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- T.JOSEPH, LEEMA COTTAGE, KARUMKULAM, PUTHIYATHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. -695 004. 2. KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHRA BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KARUMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHIYATHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- R.P.324/2010 in W.P.(C).4460/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 ORDER The review of order in I.A.2121/2010 dated 22.3.2010 is sought for. 2. The prayer of the petitioner for permission to construct a building was declined, for the reason that a hospital building cannot be allowed to be constructed since the properety in question falls under the CRZ-III. It is now contended that the area of the building mentioned as 20000 Sq.feet is incorrect and that it is only 673.72 Sq.Mtrs. Even if the area of the building is less than what is mentioned in the order, still the conclusion in the order is not affected by such an inconsequential mistake, since what is relevant is whether construction can be allowed in CRZ-III. 3. Insofar as Annexure-P7 order relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, admittedly the said R.P.324/10 2 order passed was in respect of a residential building and therefore is incomparable to the request made by the petitioner for constructing the hospital building. Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs