IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2007 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 RP.No. 1260 of 2007(J) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33062/2007 Dated 16/11/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITOINER/PERSONS EFFECTED BUT IMPLEADED IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------- SHRI. P.MURALEEDHARAN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, HARBOUR ENGINEERING PROJECT CIRCLE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.GAYA K.P., ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, TVM-9 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PORT AND HARBOUR, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, TVM-9 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- R.P. No. 1260 of 2007 in W.P ( C) No. 33062 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th December, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has sought for review of the judgment, inter alia, for the reason that he was not made a party to the writ petition, in spite of the fact that the writ petitioner had sought for a relief which affected the petitioner. The Review petitioner is right in contending so, taking note of the fact that the direction issued in the judgment dated 16.11.2007 is to the 2nd respondent to see that the writ petitioner is put in possession of the quarters which had been allotted to her. Nevertheless, I do not find any reason to review the judgment as such, taking note of the fact that as on the date of judgment sought to be reviewed, the quarters stood allotted to the petitioner. The judgment only directed implementation of an order passed by the competent authority. 2. The writ petitioner is still to be put in possession of the quarters. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that subsequent to the judgment sought to be reviewed, acting upon R.P. No. 1260 of 2007 in W.P ( C) No. 33062 of 2007 -2- a request made before the Government, he has been given a posting in Vizhinjam from Kollam He has therefore, moved an application before the Government for allotment of the same quarters to him. Such representation is being prosecuted . After having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner Sri. Ramesh Babu and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri. V.M.Krishna Kumar and the learned Government Pleader, this review petition is disposed of clarifying that the judgment dated 16.11.2007 will not stand in the way of the petitioner prosecuting the request in Annexure- 3, in accordance with law. The review petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma R.P. No. 1260 of 2007 in W.P ( C) No. 33062 of 2007 -2- K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER R.P. No. 1260 of 2007 in W.P ( C) No. 33062 of 2007 -2- 25th May, 2007