IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 702 of 2010(J) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31954/2008 Dated 08/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.K.K.BHASKARAN, AGED 71, S/O.KIZHAKEPURAKAL KUTTAN, SUDHARMA, KATTUR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. BINOY K.B., S/O.K.K.BHASKARAN, SUDHARMA, KATTUR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.RAVI K.PARIYARATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR. 2. THE MUNICIPALL ENGINEER, IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY. R1 & R2 BY AD.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.702/2010 in W.P.(C).31594/2008-J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. Order 1.In paragraph 6 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is stated as follows: “6. Therefore, if the parties have any subsisting grievance of a personal nature, relating to nuisance, public or private, jurisdiction lies before the competent District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure.” 2.The apprehension of the petitioners is that the said statement in the judgment sought to be reviewed may cripple their complaint, if any, to the appropriate LSGI on grounds of violation of the municipal laws. This apprehension is quite misplaced. The afore-quoted portion does not RP702/10 -: 2 :- relate to any matter governed by the statutory provisions, including the rules governing construction of building etc. and the judgment sought to be reviewed would not stand in the way of the petitioners seeking relief to that extent from the appropriate LSGI. The review petition is closed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2808