IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 520 of 2008(I) --------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- M. MOHANALAKSHMI, W/O. RAJKUMAR, RAJ BHAVAN (MANGATTU HOUSE), KUNDAYITHODE, P.O. KOLATHARA, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. CHERUVANNUR NALLALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, P.O. KOLATHARA, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 027. 2. P. DIVAKARAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, KUTTAKULANGARA, SASTHAPURI HOUSE, KUNDAYITHODU, P.O. KOLATHARA, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE-27. 3. OMBUDSMAN, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD C.CHERIYAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.NO.520 OF 2008 IN W.P.(c).No. 33685 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008 ORDER Even though Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel for the review petitioner has addressed me very strenuously, I am of the view that invocation of powers on review on my judgment will not be justified. Under my judgment I had issued four directions and the petitioner is aggrieved by direction No.2 only. Under that direction I had directed the Panchayat to ensure that the leach pit constructed by the petitioner which was the subject matter of the dispute in W.P.(C) No. 23544/07 ( Ext.P5) has been closed down by the petitioner. Drawing my attention to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition, Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan would submit that the petitioner should be permitted to make use of “ the old leach pit” as a waste water pit. According to him, the party respondent can have legitimate grievance only regarding the user of the old leach pit as a leach pit and not to its user as a waste water pit. RP.No.520/08 2 It was the claim of the review petitioner before this court that the leach pit constructed by him on the back side of his property which was objected to by the party respondent had been shifted by him to the front side. He cannot now say that the back side leach pit is being retained as a waste water pit. Though my judgment does not discuss the facts or the arguments addressed before me by the learned counsel, it is clear from the judgment itself that the judgment was delivered after hearing the parties elaborately. The main bone of contention between the parties was the leach pit constructed by the petitioner on the back side of the property as will be clear from Ext.P5 also. The review petition cannot and that too by invoking the narrow jurisdiction for review seek permission to retain the leach pit constructed on the back side of his property for some other purpose. Review Petition will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. RP.No.520/08 2