IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 915 of 2009(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24854/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ADDL.6TH & 7TH RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. MATHER AND MATHER (P) LTD., MATHER BUILDINGS, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.I. BABU MATHER. 2. M/S. EMPIRE BUILDERS, LALAN TOWER, 4TH FLOOR, BANERJI ROAD, HIGH COURT JUNCTION, KOCHI - 31, REP, BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. K.I. BABU MATHER. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER:RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KALATMAK RESIDENCY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATON, (A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER REGISTRATION NO.ER-674/08) HAVING OFFICE AT 102, KALATMAK RESIDENCY, VIDYANAGAR, COCHIN - 20, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT, SRI. SUDHEER PATEL. 2. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REHABILITATION BLOCK, TRIDA BUILDING, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, GCDA, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. R1 BY ADV. MR. GOVIND K.BHARATHAN R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU R4 & R6 BY ADV. MR. S.RAMESH BABU, SC, CORPORATION OF COCHIN R5 BY ADV. MR. V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSEFF, SC, GCDA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... RP.No. 915 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent on instructions by the counsel on record. 2. The judgment sought to be reviewed was issued at the stage of admission directing that the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions will ensure that the entire files are available before it to decide on an appeal pending before it. That appeal is Appeal No.630 of 2009. It goes without saying that when a quasi judicial authority or a judicial authority considers an appeal in accordance with law, it is duty bound to look into the records on which the order impugned before it was generated. Therefore, the direction was only to ensure that the Tribunal conducts its proceedings in accordance with the requirement of law. It was therefore directed that any application pending before the Tribunal to summon documents would be considered. 3. The review petitioner points out that the statements in Rp 915/2009 2 the judgment sought to be reviewed that the the main issue appears to be the approved plan and that writ petitioner's efforts to get those documents under the RT Act is stated to be not fruitful are erroneous and results in error apparent on face of record of the judgment sought to be reviewed, in as much as the writ petition does not proceed on those grounds and still further, that the matter pending before the Tribunal does not relate to any approved plan. The first four sentences in the second paragraph of the judgment sought to be reviewed has not in any manner, led to the directions ultimately issued as per the judgment. Those directions were issued solely on the fact that the appeal was pending before the Tribunal and that the said appeal needs to be decided in accordance with law. This is clear from the use of the phrase, “whatever that be” in the opening part of the fifth sentence of the second paragraph of the judgment sought to be reviewed. For the aforesaid reasons, subject to the aforesaid clarifications, this review petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/22/9