IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 761 of 2009(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17633/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- RENJITH CHERIYAN, AGED 48, S/O.CHERIYAN, KILUTHATTIL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R2 BY ADV.V.M.KURIAN, S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.761 OF 2009 IN W.P(C).No.17633 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The writ petitioner is the review petitioner. He sought relief in relation to the issuance of a building permit. The stand taken by the Municipality in the writ petition was referable to a master plan. That objection was overruled by this Court as per the judgment sought to be reviewed. The counsel for the Municipality further stated that the parcels of land in question are essentially wet lands and therefore, the matter may fall for consideration under the KLU Order. This Court never expressed its opinion on that submission. All that was done is that the submission was recorded. This review petition is generated on the plea that it is not the KLU Order that applies but even if the subsequent legislation dealing with wet lands applies, the petitioner has the clearance of the competent authority. That issue does not require to be placed before this Court because quashing the orders that were impugned in the writ petition, this RP.761/09 Page numbers Court had directed that the application of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law. Therefore, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed or any other ground justifiable and can be recognised as one enabling review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.14/8.