IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 663 of 2008(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31356/2007 Dated 01/11/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI TELE- VENTURES LIMITED, S.L. AVENUE, N.H BYE PASS, KUNDANNOOR, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS HEAD- LEAGAL, SRI.P. JAYABAL MENON. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. KEEZHERIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KEEZHERIYOOR, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. 2. KEEZHERIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, KEEZHERIYOOR, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. 3. SRI.GOPALAN NAIR, S/O. CHAPPAN NAIR, SAMADA HOUSE, KEEZHERIYOOR.P.O, KEEZHERIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SHRI V.K. RAMAKRISHNAN R3 BY ADV. SHRI JACOB SEBASTIAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.663 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.31356 OF 2007 G ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th June, 2009 ORDER By the Judgment under review, Ext.P3 came to be quashed in so far as it cancelled Exts.P1 and P2. Taking note of Exts.P7 and P8 in the Writ Petition issued by the Panchayat, it was made clear that the Panchayat could bring the proceedings to its logical conclusion. This Court also recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will proceed with the construction only after complying with the directions contained in Ext.P8. 2. In the Review Petition, what is pointed out is that the construction was not in violation of any of the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act or the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and it is to be regularised. However, the Secretary gave Annexure 2 reply. Petitioner filed the Writ Petition and this Court observed that it is not in a position to proceed with the RP.663/08 IN WPC.31356/07G 2 matter in view of what is recorded in the Judgment as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence the Review Petition is filed, it is stated, for clarification of the last sentence regarding the submission which I have adverted to. The prayer in the Review Petition is to clarify that the observation is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take steps for regularisation of the construction carried on by the petitioner, if it is permissible in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. This Court had, in the Judgment, quashed Ext.P3 in so far as Exts.P1 and P2 Permits have been cancelled. However, in order that the matter may await a decision, this Court had recorded the submission that the writ petitioner will not proceed with the construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will proceed with the construction only after complying with the directions contained in Ext.P8, as recorded. 3. I feel that the Review Petition is to be allowed, so that it can be clarified that nothing contained in the Judgment will RP.663/08 IN WPC.31356/07G 3 stand in the way of the petitioner seeking regularisation of the construction which is already made, if such regularisation is permissible in law. I also take note that it was on the basis of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will proceed with the construction only after complying with the directions in Ext.P8 that the statement was recorded in the Judgment. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed and it is ordered in the Writ Petition that this will not stand in the way of any application for regularisation filed by the petitioner being dealt with in accordance with law. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge