IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 349 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA.2041/2010 Dated 26/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ----------------------------- VIJI.P.ISSAC, CHAIRMAN THE INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL & SPIRITUAL ACADEMY, PONNAL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 730. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 349 of 2011 IN W.A. No. 2041 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 O R D E R J.Chelameswar, C.J. The review petition is put forth against a judgment in W.A.No.2041 of 2010 dated 07.04.2011. 2. An elaborate memorandum of review is filed which reads more like the grounds of appeal against the judgment in the abovementioned writ appeal. However, when the matter is taken up, the only submission made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that the direction of this Court in the abovementioned writ appeal directing the review petitioner to convey the property either to the respondent or his nominee in so far as the direction pertains to the nominee of the respondent is illegal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there cannot be any objection in law for the conveyance of the property in favour of the nominee of the respondent. But, R.P. No. 349 of 2011 -:2:- such a conveyance is possible only on compliance of certain conditions stipulated by the Review Petitioner's Board in its meeting dated 07.12.2006. Since the prayer seeking the conveyance in favour of the nominee of the respondent was not part of the original petition nor the appeal, this decision of the Board could not be brought to the notice of this Court. The decision of the Board is extracted in the memorandum of review and it reads as follows: “Extract of the board decision of the board meeting held on 07.12.2006 Item 14 KSHB-Estate Section-allotment/auction sale-transfer fee enhancement-regarding. Considered the note and decided as follows: a. Except for transfer in favour of relatives, in all other transfer of allotments, transfer fee would be enhanced from 2.5% to 5% in all cases including those schemes wherein final cost has been arrived and are yet to be arrived. b. In case of auction sale of units also, transfer fee leviable as mentioned above, would be enhanced from 2.5% to 5%. c. For further action, additional secretary is authorized.” 4. Though there is some dispute whether such a decision is applicable to a case like the one on hand, we do not go into that question in the review application for the reason that R.P. No. 349 of 2011 -:3:- the said decision of the Board does not appear to be published. In response to a specific query from the Court, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the said decision did not receive any publicity. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in the review petition. The Review Petition is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb