IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 59 of 2010(L) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31160/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/4th RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, POTTAPURATH HOUSE, (CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU), KALLUVATHUKAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENTS-PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.A.JOSE,S/O.JOEPH, PURENCHIRA HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADI, KOZHIKODE. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, PARIPPALLY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI. 4. SREI EQUIPMENTS FINANCE PVT, PALARIVATTOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B.REMANI FOR R2 & R3 SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVELLA FOR R1 SRI. K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R4 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- R.P. No. 59 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) No. 31160 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Heard Sri. G.Bhagavat Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, Sri. George Cherian (Thiruvalla), the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, Smt. T.B.Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in the review petition and Sri. K.Jayakumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent in the review petition. 2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that in view of the subsequent developments and the fact that the directions issued by me on 11.12.2009 and 21.12.2009 have been implemented and the second excavator, referred to in those orders, has been seized from him by the financier with Police aid, the review petition may be disposed of safeguarding the right of the review petitioner to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent financier seeking redressal of his grievances and enforcement of his claims. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is liable to pay to the review petitioner, the sum of Rs.2,20,000/- and that he is also entitled to recover various amounts from the fourth respondent financier. The writ petitioner and the fourth respondent dispute the R.P. No.59/2010 2 entitlement of the review petitioner in that regard. In my opinion this Court need not go into the said claims for the reason that they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this review petition. I accordingly dispose of this review petition with the observation that nothing contained in the interim orders passed by me on 11.12.2009 and 21.12.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 31160 of 2009 will stand in the way of the review petitioner/4th respondent in the writ petition from enforcing the rights claimed by him against the writ petitioner and the financier/3rd respondent in the writ petition by instituting appropriate proceedings. It is also clarified that nothing contained in the aforesaid orders will stand in the way of the writ petitioner and the financier from initiating appropriate proceedings against the review petitioner, if such proceedings are warranted. The contentions of both sides in that regard are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps R.P. No.59/2010 3