IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 72 of 2009() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18092/2008 Dated 29/08/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGALM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY KOTHAMANGALM BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.I. ABDUL KAREEM , S/O. IBRAHAM, AGED 48 YEARS, MEEKKAPADICKAL HOUSE, NEAR ROTARY CLUB, THANGALAM, NELLIKUZHI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SHEEJA ABDUL KAREEM AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL KAREEM MEEKKAPADICKAL HOUSE, NEAR ROTARY CLUB, THANGALAM, NELLIKUZHI P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. THE KOTHAMANGAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIR PERSON,KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGALAM, 4. NIMMI NAZAR, W/O. NAZAR, CHARI PERSON, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. VIJU THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, VICE CHAIRMAN, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGAM. 6. NAZAR KUNJI, MULAKKAKUDY, THANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, (EXT. COUNCILOR OF KOTHAMANGAM, MUNICIPALITY). 7. THE DISTICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. AZHEER HUSSIN, S/O.MOIDEEN PALATHINKAL HOUSE, THANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O. 10. THE TAHSILDAR, (LAND ACQUSITION), KOTHAMANGAM, 11. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN (R7, R8, R10 & R11) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ R.P. 72/2009 IN W.P.(C)No.18092/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 O R D E R It is submitted on behalf of Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, who are the respondents in the Review Petition, that the Ground No.'A' in the Review Petition will show that the Municipality is presently agreeable to have an enquiry under Section 5A conducted. On going through the Ground No.A, it is seen that the Municipality has become agreeable to have enquiry under Section 5A conducted. The review petitioners only want the enquiry under section 5A be conducted immediately. In view of Ground No.A, I feel that there is justification for recalling my judgment. I allow the review petition and recall the judgment. Post the Writ Petition before the appropriate court for hearing/disposal. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk