IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 664 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19253/2010 Dated 23/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ASSOCIATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (AHR), REGD. NO. 495/2001 REGISTERED UNDER ACT XXI OF 1860 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY, RAJAN PALLATH, AGED 58 YEARS, SON OF KRISHNANKUTTY, "PALLATH HOUSE" CHETTIYARMAD, CHELAMBRA VILLAGE, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SMT.K.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KHALID MUNDAPPILLY, MUNDAPPILLY HOUSE, EDAYAPURAM, ALUVA P.O., 683 572 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI 682 030 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST. PIN 683 572 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM PIN 695 005. R1 BY ADV. SRI. T.R. RAJAN R2 TO R4 BY DGP SRI. K.K. RAVINDRANATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.7.2010, THE COURT ON 13.8.2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R. P. No. 664 of 2010 in W.P.C. No. 19253 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This is a Review Petition filed by a person who was not a party to the Writ Petition. Petitioner-association is stated to be formed to protect human rights. The judgment was rendered in public interest to protect human rights, rights of travelling public, life of the people, etc. and petitioner has no dispute against it. Petitioner's grievance is that judgment is rendered without giving a hearing. However, petitioner has no case that petitioner-Association is holding any meeting on any public road or road margin. What human right and whose human right the petitioner wants to protect is not seen from the review petition inasmuch as petitioner has not stated how human rights are affected on account of judgment of this Court prohibiting public meetings on roads and road margins. Therefore prima facie Review Petition is not maintainable because petitioner is not aggrieved by the judgment RP 664/2010 2 sought to be reviewed. Though petitioner has expressed high respect for the Court petitioner's concern is that judgment is not natural justice compliant. We have addressed this issue in the Review Petition, R.P. No. 670 of 2010, filed by the State, which we have dismissed by separate order. In view of our findings in the said order, we do not want to consider the abstract legal issues raised, which in our view cannot be raised by a person who is not aggrieved by the judgment. We therefore dismiss the Review Petition. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk RP 664/2010 3