IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 987 of 2008(C) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24595/2008 Dated 21/08/2008 .................... PETITIONER/6TH RESPONDENT IN WPC ------------------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AUTORICKSHAW DRIVERS UNION, CITU, REGISTRATION NO.305/86, CHOTTANIKKARA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE. (WRONGLY SHAWN AS THE SECRETARY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AUTORICKSHAW DRIVERS ASSOCIATION IN THE JUDGEMENT). BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN WPC ----------------------------------------------------- 1. A.J.GEORGE, ADOOKATTIL, KUZHIYARA P.O. CHOTTANIKKARA - 682 312. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA RURAL. 4. CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHOTTANIKKARA. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY. STANDING COUNSEL ADV. SRI.SREEKUMAR FOR PANCHAYATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- R.P. 987 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) 24595 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 ORDER This review petition is filed by the 6th respondent in the writ petition. 2. It is contended that on the date when the writ petition was disposed of, they were not heard. As is seen from the endorsements, by the time the writ petition was taken up for hearing, service was complete, and therefore I do not find any substance in the contention now raised. 3. Even otherwise, I am not satisfied that any prejudice has been caused to the review petitioner. This is for the reason that what is ordered to be implemented is Ext.P1 resolution of the Panchayat which has been approved by the RTA by Ext.P2. Admittedly against Exts.P1 and P2, the review petitioner had filed a revision before the R.P. 987 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) 24595 of 2008 2 STAT and that was dismissed by Ext.P3 order of the STAT. Ext.P3 has become final and, if that be so, the review petitioner is bound by Exts.P1 and P2 which is ordered to be implemented by the judgment. 4. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there is any error in the judgment warranting review. The review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-