IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1193 of 2009() --------------------- (AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.31471/09) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ T.K.PADMANABHAN, VAZHIPADU CLERK, KALARIVATHUKKAL SREEBHAGHAVATHI KSHETHRAM, KALARIVATHUKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE TRUSTEE, CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKAM DEVASWOM, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR. 4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKAM DEVASWOM, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, THALASSERY. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN SRI.K.MOHANAKANNA, SC, MDB THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.1193 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 31471 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 19th of November, 2009 directing the 5th respondent to consider Ext.P5 and take appropriate action to remedy the grievance of the petitioner. It is now pointed out that the 5th respondent himself is a party to Ext.P4 decision impugned in the writ petition and therefore, no useful purpose will be served in pursuing the matter before the same authority. This factual aspect was not noticed at the time when the writ petition was disposed of. Now that this aspect has been pointed out, I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated for error apparent on the face of it and the judgment dated 19th November, 2009 is recalled. Review petition is allowed as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp