IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2011/18TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 516 of 2011 (Y) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.31392/2010 DATED 24-01-2011 REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WP: -------------------------------------------------- 1. ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERATTUPETTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERATTUPETTA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP: ------------------------------- MISBAH SALAM, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, PROPRIETOR, CHAMS ADVERTISE & PUBLISHERS ERATTUPETTA-686121. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU M.P. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 516 of 2011 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A : COPY OF MINUTES OF THE BOARD DTD.2.7.2010 ANNEXURE B : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.11.2010 ANNEXURE C : COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD.28.4.2011 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J ----------------------------------------------------- R.P NO.516 OF 2011 in W.P(C) No.31392 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 O R D E R The respondents in the writ petition are the review petitioners. This review petition is filed against the judgment dated 24.1.2011 in the captioned writ petition. It was disposed of making the interim order dated 3.12.2010 absolute and subject to the conditions in Ext.P1 license and Ext.P3 agreement executed for the purpose of erecting the hoardings on the external walls of Erattupetta Private bus stand including the walls of Kareem Saheb Memorial Shopping Complex. 2. While admitting the said writ petition this Court passed an interim order on 3.12.2010 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to erect the hoardings on the external walls of Erattupetta Private bus stand including on the walls of Kareem Saheb Memorial Shopping Complex. Subsequently, the petitioner was given permission to erect hoardings in terms of the order and the hoardings were also erected. Later, this Court disposed of the said writ petition taking note of the submission R.P NO.516 OF 2011 : 2 : made by the learned counsel on both sides and that no further orders were required in the matter. Various contentions have been raised in this review petition. It is mainly contended that certain aspects, which were not within the knowledge at the time of disposal of the above writ petition, would reveal that Exts.P2 and P3, referred as such in the writ petition, could not have been considered as genuine and legally executed. The respondent attributed collusion on the part of then Secretary of Erattupetta Grama Panchayat Sri.K.Muraleedharan in the matter and further submitted that he is, now, under suspension. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondent/the writ petitioner. I do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the said contention in view of the order I propose to pass in this review petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submits that the review petitioners may be given liberty to look into the legality of Exts.P2 and P3 also the correctness of the grant of permission to erect hoardings to the writ petitioners based on Exts.P2 and P3. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that in case the review petitioners are proposing to interfere with the earlier R.P NO.516 OF 2011 : 3 : proceedings they may be directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner before passing any orders. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that any such action would be taken only with notice to the writ petitioner and also only after affording him an opportunity of being heard. In the said circumstances, it is clarified that the judgment dated 24.1.2011 in W.P(C) No.31392 of 2010 will not stand in the way of any such consideration, in accordance with law, and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as aforesaid. C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE ab