IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 665 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP 141/2009 IN WPC.613/2006 Dated 16/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WP/R1 IN RP: -------------------------------------------- THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BSNL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP/R2-5 IN RP: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. M.S.ANAZ, S/O.SAITHU MUHAMMAD, MANALUMPARAMBU HOUSE, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R5 R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.A.No.665 of 2009 ----------------------------------- DATED:MARCH 23, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J. The dispute is as to who is entitled for allotment of the land belonging to the Government. According to the appellant, he is in possession of the land after paying the entire amount. While the matter was pending, when an order was passed by this Court staying the resumption of the land by the Government, a paper allotment is said to have been made in favour of the review petitioner who was not a party in the writ petition. Finally the writ petition was disposed of directing a High Power Committee to be constituted consisting of the representatives of both the Government and the BSNL, both being public sector undertakings, in view of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in such matters. The review petitioner, aggrieved by the order and in the absence of him being made a party, seeks for review of that order. W.A.NO.665 of 2009 :2: Therefore this Court, for a limited purpose of enabling the review petitioner also to be heard by such a committee, permitted him also to appear before the committee. So much so, we do not find any error in the order passed in the review petition. When the review petitioner himself has no grievance, the appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order passed in the review petition since the decision is to be made by the High Power Committee and, if ultimately the decision is adverse to any of the parties, it is always open to them to approach a court of law, if they are otherwise entitled. In such circumstances we do not find any substantial grievance to be redressed in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mt/-