IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 970 of 2010(L) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29313/2010 Dated 29/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.CMJ GRANITES, BUILDING NO.8215, MARIYAPURAM KARA, MARIYAPURAM (PO), THANKAMANY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SEBASTIAN C.JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & R1 TO 4 IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANISH GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NELLIKUNNEL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM KARA, THANKAMANY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN-685 554. 2. P.R.BABU, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANICHUNNEL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM KARA, THANKAMANY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN-685 554. 3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, 5TH FLOOR, A BLOCK, CGO COMPLEX, SEMINARY HILLS, NAGPUR. PIN-440 001. 4. THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, 140, MARSHAL ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU. PIN-600 008. 5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, C2, 3RD FLOOR, KENDREEYA BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 030. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. PIN-685 603. R3 TO R5 BY ADV.SRI.K.K.RAZIYA ACGSC R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P. No.970 of 2010 in W.P (C) No.29313 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th November, 2010 O R D E R Writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 29th September, 2010 directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P5, when orders are passed on the application made by the review petitioner for license. 2. Review petitioner seems to be aggrieved mainly on an allegation in Ext.P5 representation regarding the finding arrived at by the Civil Court in its order in I.A No.853/2010 in O.S No.133/2010, which is Ext.P2 in the writ petition. He submits that in the light of Annexures II and III produced along with the review petition, the said averment in Ext.P5 should not influence the second respondent and that the matter is considered as directed. 3. This Court has only directed the second respondent to consider Ext.P5. When the matter is considered as directed, it is open to the petitioner to make available to second respondent Annexures II and III also, so the second respondent can take note of those R.P. No.970 of 2010 in W.P (C) No.29313 of 2010 2 documents alsoand pass orders in the matter. Clarifying the position as above, review petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma