IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 980 of 2010(H) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37720/2009 Dated 02/09/2010 .................. REVIEW PETITIONER / NOT PARTY IN THE W.P. -------------------------------------------------------------------- JOY T.A., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, THAROOKKARA HOUSE, POST VELATHUR, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MURALIDHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. PATHIYAN VELAYUDHAN, SINDHOORAM GIFT HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE GROUND, KARSHAKA NAGAR P.O., THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WEST POLICE STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. 3. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. REGIONAL TRNASPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI R2, R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.980 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 37720 OF 2009 (H) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the review petitioner, 1st respondent/writ petitioner and the counsel appearing for the other respondents. 2. While disposing of the writ petition, by judgment dated 2nd of September, 2010, this Court proceeded on the statement made on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the parking of autorickshaws at Karshaka Nagar, Ayyanthole Ground was unauthorised. 3. However, along with the review petition, permits have been produced as Annexure A series, which suggests that Karshaka Nagar, Ayyanthole Ground have been identified as a parking area as per RTA's decision dated 22/12/2009. These permits were not brought to the notice of this Court nor did the petitioner challenged those permits. Therefore, the judgment having been rendered without noticing these aspects, is clearly erroneous, and for that reason, needs to be recalled and I do so. RP No.980/10 in WP(C) No.37720/09 :2 : 4. Review petition will stand allowed and the writ petition will stand posted for hearing. Post next week. Parties shall file their affidavits in the writ petition in the meanwhile. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp