IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 1008 of 2009(P) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26786/2009 Dated 23/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN WP NO.26768/2009 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. R.STHURAJ, LICENSEE, HOTEL NAVARATNA, M.C.ROAD, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. K.V.VISWAMBHARAN, LICENSEE, HOTEL BHAGAVATH GARDENS, MARKET ROAD, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, MANAGER, HOTEL PRIYA, MARKET ROAD, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP NO.26768/2009 ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, CHENGANNUR. 4. THE BUDHANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BUDHANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, BUDHANUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1008 OF 2008 IN W.P(C).No.26786 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 O R D E R This review petition is filed pointing out that the judgment has been issued in conflict with the statutory provisions. As of now, the judgment has worked itself out in as much as bye- election has already been held and the question of ban in sale of liquor on that day is no more relevant. It is accordingly that the review petition turned out to be one of academic interest. It is not necessary now to review the judgment in an academic issue unless it is relevant to decide a matter. This writ petition is essentially infructuous. Obviously the petitioners will be entitled to point out that the judgment sought to be reviewed is wrong in law if it is put against them in any other proceedings. This writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.23/10.