IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 403 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30204/2007 Dated 30/01/2008 .................... PETTITIONERS/ 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MR.SATISH MURTHI, ADVOCATE, AGED 44 YKEARS, S/O. K.V.NARAYAN MURTHI, FLAT NO. 102, KALATMAK RESIDENCY, VIDYA NAGAR, KOCHI-20. \ 2. MRS.UMA MURTHI, ADVOCATE, W/O.SATISH MURTHI, FLAT NO.102, KALATMAK RESIDENCY, VIDYA NAGAR, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR 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. MR.K.I.BABU MATHER, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY MATHER, AGED 48 YEARS,MANAGING PERTNER, EMPIRE BUILDERS, LALAN TOWER, 4TH FLOOR, BANERJI ROAD, HIGH COURT OF JUNCTION, KOCHI-31. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE, COCHIN-11. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OFFICE, VYTTILA. 5. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN-11. 6. KALATMAK RESIDENCY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, VIDYANAGAR, COCHIN-20. 7. MR.E.V.PAUL, 6A, DEFENSE COLONY, BAGLORE-38. 8. MRS.LOVELY PAUL, W/O.B.V.PAUL, 6A, DEFESE COLONY, BANGALORE-38. 9. SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, WELLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-9, REPRESENTED BY ITS FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING IN CHIEF. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA). R3 TO R5 BY SC SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY. R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FENERAL. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== R.P.No.403 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No.30204 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008. ORDER Heard. 2. This review petition is filed with reference to the statements in paragraph 8 of the judgment sought to be reviewed. It is pointed out that after that judgment was issued on 30-1-2008, the writ petitioners have moved the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and have placed Annexure-I clearance issued by the Southern Naval Command on 27-11-2007 in support of that appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The grievance sought to be made out by the review petitioner is that the availability of Annexure-I clearance of the Southern Naval Command RP403/2008 -:2:- was not disclosed to this Court while rendering the judgment sought to be reviewed and therefore that judgment may be recalled as one having been obtained by suppression of material facts. The second and rather the more important one is that the petitioners, according to them, have a right of appeal against Annexure-I order under the relevant statute and that with the passage of time they would stand deprived of their entitlement to avail such remedy. 4. As noticed in the judgment sought to be reviewed, those writ petitions were disposed of relegating the parties to the Tribunal for consideration of the matter under the municipal laws. As regards the question of clearance of the Southern Naval Command, it was then submitted on behalf of the Command that a fresh application has to be filed. It was accordingly that the directions in paragraph 8 of the judgment sought to RP403/2008 -:3:- be reviewed were issued. Annexure-I shows that the submission made on behalf of the Southern Naval Command on 30-1-2008 before this Court was essentially on a mistake of fact since there was no reason attributable to the Southern Naval Command or to the Assistant Solicitor General for having made the statement that led to the direction contained in paragraph 8 of the direction sought to be reviewed. Even if Annexure-1 was placed before this Court, that would have led only to the situation where the directions contained in paragraph 8, namely, to the Southern Naval Command to consider any fresh application that may be received, would not have been issued by this Court. In the wake of Annexure-I being made available, the directions contained in paragraph 8 of the judgment sought to be reviewed deserve to be recalled since they were unnecessary and accordingly those directions are recalled on the ground that Annexure-I order of the Southern Naval Command RP403/2008 -:4:- issued on 27-11-2007 continues to hold the field. But, I am not inclined to take the view that there was any suppression of material facts either by the petitioner or by the Southern Naval Command. 5. On to the question as to whether the petitioners have been deprived of any statutory right to challenge Annexure-I order, that would depend upon the quality of appeal under the relevant laws, however that, the petitioners could be mulcted with the knowledge of Annexure-I only from the date on which they received notice of proceedings before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions with a copy of Annexure-I or the date of their appearance before the Tribunal, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the mere issuance of Annexure-II judgment does not tilt the scales against the review petitioners' right, if any, to challenge Annexure-I decision of the Southern Naval Command. RP403/2008 -:5:- With the aforesaid clarification, this review petition is closed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl. 4-4-2008