IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 195 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2602/2005 .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WA ---------------------------------------------- 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, 7, BHIKHAJI CAMA PLACE, AFRICA AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110 066. 2. THE ZONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, SHATHABADI BHAVAN, MINI BYPASS ROAD, GOVINDAPURAM.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 016. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REGIONAL BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS ----------------------- 1. R.PRASANNAKUMAR, MINI DEPOSIT COLLECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, STATUE BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SANKARA PILLAI.K, MINI DEPOSIT COLLECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, HANTEX BUILDING, STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.APPUKKUTTAN, MINI DEPOSIT COLLECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RP.No. 195 of 2008() 4. P.SASIDHARAN, MINI DEPOSIT COLLECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CHAMMAKADA, KOLLAM. BY SRI H.B.SHENOY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, ANTONY DOMINIC JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R.P.No.195/2008 in W.A.No.2602/2005 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 O R D E R PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. The judgment in W.A.No.2602/2005 is sought to be reviewed by the respondents on the ground that the said judgment as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge which was confirmed by that judgment are vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the judgments. By the judgments, the bank has been directed to consider and dispose of a representation which has been referred to as Ext.P2. The case is that Ext.P2 produced was not a representation and that the writ petitioners had not filed any representation at all before the bank. We enquired of the counsel for the bank as to whether the bank is agreeable to permission being granted now to the writ petitioners to submit a representation identical to the representation which had been filed by the petitioners in the connected writ petition. The learned counsel would submit that R.P No.195/2008 -:2:- such a permission is no longer necessary since the bank has already taken a decision and communicated the decision to all concerned, including the present respondents. Under these circumstances, we dispose of the review petition holding that it is not necessary to review the judgment in view of the decisions subsequently taken by the bank on the basis of the representations which had actually been filed by the petitioners in the connected writ petition. We, however, make it clear that this order shall not cause any prejudice to any of the parties in the review petition while prosecuting/defending any fresh proceeding in respect of the bank's order. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ms