IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 931 of 2008(L) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13765/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER : --------------------------------------------------- K.MADHUSOODANAN, S/O.LATE M.KUNJURAMAN MADHUGEETHAM, PANGAPPARA VILLAGE MANAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (DIVISIONAL SECRETARY, SRES, TVC DIVISON) BY ADV. SRI.V.G.SANKARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY RAILWAY DEPARTMENT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERSONNAL BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 3. DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERSONAL BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -14 4. PADMAKUMAR, SM/TVC DREU ACTIVIST, RAILWAY, KOLLAM. 5. SUSUBHANAN, SM BRANCH, KOLLAM RAILWAY KOLLAM. 6. SOMARAJAN.PS II/C & D/O.QLN. RAILWAY KOLLAM. 7. SUGATHAN, ST/T MAN RAILWAY, KOLLAM 8. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. BY ADV. N.B. SUNIL NATH, SC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== R.P.No.931 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This review petition is filed for reviewing my judgment dated 29.4.2008 in W.P.(C) No13765 of 2008. By that judgment, I granted the petitioner two months' time to vacate the premises in question. The petitioner now contends that in view of the fact that the petitioner's union is affiliated to a federal union, which has been recognised, the petitioner is also entitled to benefits of such recognition. Therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner is not liable to vacate the premises in question. This contention cannot be considered now for two reasons. First is that such a contention was not taken in the writ petition. As such I had no occasion to consider such contention. This was a contention, the petitioner ought to have taken in the writ petition, which having not taken, it must be persumed that the petitioner has abandoned such a contention. Further against the judgment in question, the petitioner had filed a writ appeal in which the petitioner was given liberty to approach the single judge for extension of time for vacating the R.P.No.931 of 2008 - 2 - premises in question only. That being so, the petitioner cannot now seek review of the judgment itself. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Review Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs