IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 546 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1482/2009 Dated 26/05/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ T.J.ANTONY, THALIYATH HOUSE, PATHUVAPURAM P.O., PANTHAKKAL, KARUKUTTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- R.P.No. 546 of 2011 in W.A.No. 1482 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 O R D E R J.Chelameswar, CJ. This Review Petition is filed on behalf of the second respondent in W.A.No.1482 of 2009. It is recorded at paragraph 10 of the judgment dated 26th May, 2011 as follows: “10. Heard the leaned counsel for the appellant, Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar. There is no appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent when the matter is taken up for hearing; though from the records we see that the 2nd respondent is represented by counsel.” 2. However, it is stated in the memorandum of Review Petition at paragraph 2 that the learned counsel for the second respondent could not present. Paragraph 2 of the Review Petition reads as follows: “2. It is submitted that when the case was taken for final hearing the counsel for othis petitioner was not present as he was undergoing bed rest due to severe chest infection. The counsel's colleague who was instructed to seek for RP.546/11 2 an adjournment could not do so as he was held up in other court. Hence, the order was passed without hearing the revision petitioner.” 3. Coming to the grounds, on which the review is sought, only two grounds are pleaded, which read as follows: “I. There are sufficient reasons for review of the judgment in the writ Appeal. In view of the fact that important contentions could not be put before this Hon'ble Court while disposing the writ appeal had caused much prejudice to this review petitioner. As submitted earlier the order was passed without considering section 271 J of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. II. The 1st respondent municipality is not even cared to honor its own commitment before the ombudsman. There was an enormous delay in getting requisite sanction from the railway authorities. This comes under the maladministration as defined in the act. In view of the grounds and the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing this hon'ble court may be pleased to review the judgment dated 26.5.2011 in W.A.No.1482 of 2009.” 4. The submission of the learned counsel indicates that the petitioner is seeking a rehearing of the matter and not seeking a review on the ground that there is any error apparent on the face of record. RP.546/11 3 In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to entertain the Review Petition. The Review Petition is dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs