IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 132 of 2011(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22667/2010 Dated 12/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, P.F.DIVISION, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/3RD RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDAVANKOROTH NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, NEDIYANGA, KAVUMBHAI, KETTUMUGHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 631. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.132 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 22667 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 12th November, 2010 recording the submission made on behalf of the review petitioners that, by order dated 4/10/2010, freedom fighters pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. In this review petition, it is averred that pension was sanctioned to one Edavan Narayanan Nambiar and that it was by way of a mistake that submission was made that the petitioner was sanctioned the pension. It is also submitted that the said submission has happened to be made on account of the similarity in the name of the petitioner and the person in whose favour orders have been issued. On this basis, counsel submits that, it was on account of the mistake committed that the judgment happened to be rendered and he seeks review of the same. 3. I heard the counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd R.P.No.132/11 in WPC No.22667/10 :2 : respondent. In substance, the submission made on behalf of the review petitioners is more of a confession of a mistake committed. 4. If the facts are as stated, it is obvious that a mistake has happened. 5. Therefore, I allow the review petition and recall the judgment in WP(C) No.22667/2010. Post the writ petition after two weeks for further hearing. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp