IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 616 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16795/2009 Dated 18/06/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------- ALPHONSA STREEDER, W/O. MARTIN STREEDAR, MANGALATH HOUSE, P.O.KOONAMMAVU, VALLUVALLI, KOTUVALLI VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SMT.ROSY VARGHESE. BY ADVS. MR.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, MR.K.JAGADEESH, MR.T.S.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------------------- PALLIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALLIPPURAM, CHERAI-683 614. BY ADV. MR. T.A.SHAJI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ....................... R.P.616/2009 in W.P.(C).16795/2009 ....................... Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 ORDER The writ petition was disposed of giving permission to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the CRZ notification for fixing the high tide line and to demarcate 200 meters from the high tide line in relation to the petitioner's property. Petitioner was also permitted to approach the Panchayat seeking revocation of Ext.P1 which was impugned in the writ petition. Depending upon the demarcation effected by the Coastal Zone Management. Review petition has been filed contending that apart from the direction issued in the judgment, this Court should have also directed the Panchayat to number the buildings thereby enabling the petitioner to occupy the same even before the competent authority under the CRZ notification demarcates 200 meters. 2. Firstly, this is not a matter which could be urged in a petition for review. Secondly, I was not inclined to issue a direction as sought for, at the time of disposal of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the R.P.616/09 2 judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.37984/2007 which in turn had referred to the judgment in Parthan v. Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat (2006 (3) KLT 734). It seems that in Parthan, this Court had issued an interim order for numbering the building during the pendency of the writ petition and apparently, the said interim direction was not revoked at the time of the disposal of the writ petition. No doubt in W.P.(C).No.37984/2007, a learned Judge of this Court had directed the buildings involved in the said case to be numbered. But paragraph 4 of the judgment makes it clear that the buildings involved therein are small residential structures for accommodating the petitioners and their families who are fishermen. Buildings in the present case going by Ext.P1 photographs, are obviously different. Buildings are concrete structures, intended to be used for commercial and Tourist purposes. I do not find any grounds to review the judgment. Review petition is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs