IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 22 of 2011(M) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20079/2006 Dated 16/06/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ DINESAN, BUILDING INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 3 ------------------------------------------------- 1. V.A.XAVIER, S/O. V.J.ANTONY, VILLANASSERIL HOUSE, SHANTHINAGAR, THEVARA, KOCHI-13. 2. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 4. V.RAJU, PRESENT SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM -682 011. STANDING COUNSEL FOR CORPORATION SRI.S.RAMESH BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: pm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P. No. 22 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 20079 of 2006 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Heard. 2. This Review Petition is filed by the additional fourth respondent in the writ petition. A reading of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment shows why this Court accepted the contention against the review petitioner and imposed cost on him. The grounds raised in the Review Petition do not suggest that the aforesaid findings in the judgment are vitiated for any reason. Therefore, the Review Petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge