IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 272 of 2011(D) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36036/2010 Dated 02/12/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, RAILWAY BOARD, RAILWAY BHAVAN,NEW DELHI. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (WORKS), DISTRICT OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE AREA MANAGER, ERNAKULAM JUNCTION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR,SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.HASSAN,DOOR NO.32/1858, SRA NO.34, SURABHI ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024. 2. K.K.HASSAIN, DOOR NO.32/1858, SRA NO.34, SURABHI ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.272/2011 in W.P(c).NO.36036 OF 2010(D) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 O R D E R The review petition has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 2.12.2010, directing that the 2nd respondent shall dispose of Ext.P9. It is now pointed out that the superior authority who can examine the matter is the 3rd respondent and not the 2nd respondent and the judgment which directs the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 is erroneous. 3. In view of the submissions made as above, the judgment to the extent it directs the 2nd respondent in the writ petition to dispose of Ext.P9 calls for review. However, from Ext.P9 it is noticed that copy there of has already been sent to the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. 4. Taking note of the above, the review petition is disposed of modifying the direction in the judgment requiring the 2nd respondent in the writ petition to dispose of Ext.P9 and directing the 3rd petitioner in this review petition to pass orders on Ext.P9. This the 3rd petitioner shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this R.P.No.272/2011 :2 : order. Review petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/