IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 779 of 2008(R) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4773/2008 Dated 11/02/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- M/S.HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY (P) LTD., REGD.OFFICE AT CITI CENTRE, 113, PATTU PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA, HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, IN HEERA PARK, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER, SHRI.N.G.KURUP, S/O.VISHNU DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.KUTTY, RESIDING AT KUNNAPPILLY HOUSE, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE THRIKKAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE THRIKKAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV.MR.N.SUBRAMANIAM R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA R3 BY ADV.MR.S.SHANAVASKHAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.779 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.4773 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th August, 2008 ORDER Even though Mr.K.M.Sathianatha Menon, learned counsel for the builder(review petitioner) has addressed me very strenuously, I do not find any warrant for reviewing my judgment. Under my judgment I only directed that Ext.P2 representation filed by the writ petitioner should be taken up by the Panchayat and the Panchayat should conduct local inspection with notice to all concerned including the builder and that a decision should be taken without delay. Learned counsel for the builder submitted that in an earlier Writ Petition this issue has been decided and the judgment of that Writ Petition is binding on the Panchayat. If it is so, it is open to the review petitioner to highlight this aspect of the matter during the hearing, opportunity for which will be given to the review petitioner. I decline to exercise the jurisdiction for review of my judgment. It is however made clear that it will be open to the review petitioner to raise all the grounds raised in the Review Petition before the Panchayat. The Panchayat apart from giving notice to the review petitioner and all other concerned regarding local inspection, will personally hear the parties who are given notice regarding local inspection before final R.P.No.779/08 - 2 - decision is taken. Decision to be taken by the Panchayat in response to the Panchayat's hearing will be communicated to the review petitioner. If the decision is in the nature of an order directing demolition of the constructions put up by the review petitioner, the same will not be implemented by the Panchayat for a period of seven days from the date of communication of the decision. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE