IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 270 of 2010(C) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13666/2009 Dated 13/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITION IN W.P.(C) ----------------------------------- BABY CHANDAPILLAI,W/O.LATE VARGHESE CHANDAPILLAI,AGED 72 YEARS,KOLATH PUTHENCHERA HOUSE, PERUNNA EAST KARA,CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPL.TAHSILDAR,(LAND ACQUISITION) GENERAL,KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD (ROADS DIVISION),KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM. 5. SRI.JAYAPRAKASH,PADMASREE, PERUNNA EAST.P.O,CHANGANACHERRY. 6. SMT.REMANI MENON,PUTHIYARA HOUSE, PERUNNA EAST.P.O,CHANGANACHERRY. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.L.G.SURESH BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------- R.P. No.270 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Basheer, J. This Review Petition is at the instance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13666/2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of along with a Writ Appeal and yet another Writ Petition, all of which related to Changanacherry bye-pass connecting MC road. 2. We have heard Sri.Johnson P. John, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the grounds raised in the Review Petition. Apparently, the attempt of the petitioner is to persuade this Court to rehear the entire matter. 3. Petitioner now places heavy reliance on Annexure-I to III judgment/orders passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in another Writ Petition. In Annexure-I this petitioner was respondent No.5. He filed a Review Petition in the said Writ Petition and obtained Annexure-III order which according to the R.P.No.270/2010 2 petitioner would vindicate his position. He contends that these orders should have been kept in view by the Division Bench while passing the impugned common judgment. 4. Admittedly, these orders were not produced before the Division Bench when the cases were heard. It is seen that the copies of these orders were obtained by the petitioner after the common judgment was passed by the Division Bench. The other contention raised by the learned counsel is that the report of the Survey Superintendent dated 7th October, 2009 also should have been considered by the Division Bench in its proper perspective while passing the judgment under review. 5. It may be noticed that the thrust of the contentions raised by the learned counsel is on the alleged change brought in by the authorities while finalising the alignment of the road. It is contended by the learned counsel that the alignment was changed by the Engineers inorder to help respondent No.5 in this Review Petition. The very same condition was very vehemently urged before us earlier, which we had repelled after considering all the relevant aspects elaborately with reference to the Survey, Plans R.P.No.270/2010 3 and other records. On a perusal of Annexure-I to III also, we do not find any reason to review the judgment. 6. We are afraid the contentions now raised by the petitioner are totally outside the scope and ambit of review. The common judgment was passed after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the records available before the court. We do not find any reason to review the judgment. Review Petition is therefore dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ps