IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 697 of 2008(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16344/2008 Dated 11/06/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER ANU T. GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, VADAKKEMURIYIL GRANITES, KOLABHAGAM.P.O, THADIYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1. ROY MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, VALIPLAKKAL HOUSE, CHUNKAPPARA.P.O. 2. NOUSHAD, AMBATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, CHUNKAPPARA.P.O. 3. SALIM.P.A, VANCHIKAPPARA HOUSE, CHUNKAPPARA.P.O. 4. SAKHEER, PEON, FEDERAL BANK, CHUNKAPPARA BRANCH, CHUNKAPPARA.P.O. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMPETTI. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALLAPPALLI. 7. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. MR. V. SANTHARAM & SMT. DAISYY A. PHILIPOSE BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR. SALIM P.A. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== R.P.NO. 697 OF 2008 IN W.P.C. NO. 16344 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2008 ORDER Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of the judgment rendered by us on 11-6-2008. By producing Annexure-A1 communication and A2 register maintained by Kottangal Grama Panchayath, the review petitioner points out that those documents would show that the submission made on behalf of the first respondent that the road in question does not belong to the Panchayath is not correct. But, we have rendered the judgment under review not relying on the above claim of the first respondent. The same is evident from paragraph 7 of the judgment. Therefore, the production of the above R.P.NO. 697/2008 -2- documents do not warrant the review of the judgment. While disposing of the writ petition we have kept open all the contentions of the petitioner. The present contention raised in the review petition is also kept open, which the petitioner may urge before the appropriate forum. In the result, the review petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks. R.P.NO. 697/2008 -3-