IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 865 of 2009(G) ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.19106/2009 DATED 12/08/2009) .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.H.MUHAMMED ALI, S/O. HASSAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. HASSAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. K.H.ABDUL SALAM, S/O. HASSAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. K.H.ABDUL KAREEM S/O. HASSAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.RENJITH B.MARAR, MR.L.RAJESH NARAYAN, SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY THE SECRETARY. 3. A.K.NAZAR, S/O. A.M.KHADAR PILLAI, 25/2001-B, ANJIKATH HOUSE, V.M.B ROAD, PATHADI PALAM, KOCHI. R.P. NO. 865/2009-G: 4. M/S. R.F. MOTORS, PATHADIPALAM, COCHIN UNIVERSITY.P.O., ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT: 5. UCO BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, K. MOHANDAS, S/O. KALIYAMOORTHY, AGED 46 YEARS, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD, ADDL.R5 BY ADV. MR.KODOTH SREEDHARAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.865/2009 IN W.P.(C).19106/2009-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009. O R D E R This review petition is filed by the writ petitioners. The limited plea pressed into service at the time of consideration of this case for admission today is that the view taken by this Court in rejecting Relief No.iii in the writ petition on the ground of locus standi of the writ petitioners is vitiated. The said finding is not one touching the landlord-tenant relationship or any rights of the landlord or tenant referable to any particular legislation. All that has been stated is that the landlord is not entitled to seek the relief of issuance of a writ of mandamus in relation to a tenant's application for permit to conduct a business, particularly when the tenant has not approached the Court. That view is only regarding the exercise of discretionary RP865/09 -: 2 :- power under Article 226 and the word 'locus' is used only in that context. The landlord was found disentitled to seek a direction in relation to the tenant's application for permit under the municipal laws. The assumption of the petitioners that this may have a bearing in other jurisdictions is unfounded. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment or any other ground, for review of judgment under Article 226 of the Constitution. The review petition is, hence, dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/140909