IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 RP.No. 1023 of 2008(M) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10207/2008 Dated 26/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC ------------------------------------------- M.J.SIMON, S/O. JOHN, MANJALAYIL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.MATHEWS SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2 &4 ------------------------------------------------ 1. VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LTD., ASHISH BUILDING, COCHIN 31, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL), RAJESH, MELETH VEETTIL, S/O. RAGHAVAN MELETHUVEETTIL 2. KOTHAMANGALAM MUNCIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. P.P.MEERAN HAJI, S/O. PAREED, PALIKKAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.P.SATHISAN GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON.P.MANGUZHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.1023 OF 2008 in W.P.(c).No. 10207 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner- the third respondent seeks review of my judgment mainly on the following two grounds. 1) The first respondent Municipality did not afford hearing opportunity to the petitioner despite specific direction which was issued by this court under the judgment. 2) It is obligatory under the statute that the petitioner has permission from the Municipality even for carrying out the works permitted under my judgment. 2. The same issue is being considered by a regular civil court and that court was influenced by my judgment while disposing of the interlocutory application for temporary injunction. Civil Miscellaneous applications are proposed to be filed against the interim order passed by the Munsiff's court and the currency of this court's judgment is likely to prejudice the petitioner's interest in the civil miscellaneous application RP.No.1023/08 2 and the suit. 3. Considering the submissions of Sri.N.J.Mathews I directed the learned standing counsel for the Municipality to be present. But the standing counsel is not available even today when the case is posted for the second time. 4. Under the above circumstances, I feel that since a regular civil court is in seizin of the matter, the issue should be allowed to be finally decided by the civil court. I dispose of the review petition observing that neither the Munsiff's court nor the Subordinate Judge's Court which comes to consider the appeals against the interim order passed by the Munsiff's court should be influenced by the circumstance that Annexure A judgment has been issued granting certain reliefs to the petitioner. Those courts will decide the issues before them independently evaluating the evidence available before them. Review Petition is disposed of accordingly. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. RP.No.1023/08 2