IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 258 of 2010(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2056/2010 Dated 30/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ CORPORATION OF KOCHI,CORPORATION BUILDING,KOCHI,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.SARAUMMA,W/O.ABDUL KALAM, AGED 49 YEARS,NEDUNGATTUKUDY HOUSE,OKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,REP.BY HER P/A.HOLDER SRI.K.M.SALIM, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU,AGED 42 YEARS, KEEPATH HOUSE,VATTAKKATTUPADY,PERUMBAVOOR.PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SRI.P.KRISHNANKUTTY @ P.K.KUTTY, KRISHNAKRIPA,30/12731,TEMPLE ROAD,VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. 3. SMT.BHAGYALAKSHMI,W/O.P.KRISHNANKUTTY, KRISHNAKRIPA,30/12731,TEMPLE ROAD, VYTTILA,ERNAKULAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.258 of 2010 in WP(C) No.2056 of 2010 (F) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the contesting respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 30/01/2010 holding that in view of the disputed questions of facts involved, it was not possible in this to grant relief to the petitioner. Proceeding further, anticipating that it may be possible for the Secretary to hear the parties and amicably settle the dispute, this Court directed the Secretary to hear the parties and pass orders thereon remedying the grievance of both sides. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Corporation issued notice, heard the parties, but from the review petition, it is seen that the parties are still at loggerheads, and therefore, the dispute could not be resolved. In view of this, in this petition a clarification is sought in order to R.P. No.258/2010 -2- enable the Secretary to pass order on merits. In the said circumstances, I feel, the only possible course is to clarify the judgment as sought for. Accordingly, the judgment is clarified that it will be open to the Secretary to pass orders on merits, pursuant to the directions as contained in paragraph 5 of the judgment. The Secretary shall pass orders as above within two weeks from today. The review petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg