IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 165 of 2008(P) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33748/2007 DATED 22.01.2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER-4TH RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- T.L. SEBASTIAN, TOTTUPATTU HOUSE, KODIKULAM POST, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS - PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GARVASIS JOHN NARANATHU, KODIKULAM, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE SECRETARY, KODIKULAM PANCHAYATH, KODIKULAM, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER, KODIKULAM, THODUPUZHA. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. BY SMT. SADHANAKUMARI EASWARI SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.165 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 ORDER Sri.Mathew John, learned counsel for the review petitioner seeks review of my judgment for the purpose of incorporating a direction that till such time as the Panchayat takes decision on Ext.R4(a) application, the petitioner will have the permission of conducting poultry farm on the basis of a deemed licence. According to him, it is due to the omission on the part of the stenographer that the above direction which was dictated in the open court does not find a place in the judgment. Smt.Sadhana Kumari Eswari, counsel for the respondent submits that such a clause in the judgment at this juncture will send a wrong message to the Panchayat. I do not think that the apprehension of Smt.Sadhanakumari Eswari is well founded. Panchayat is expected to take a decision on Ext.R4(a) in accordance with law and in the light of the submissions which will be addressed before the Panchayat during hearing. It is open to the petitioner to urge all available grounds while Ext.R4(a) is being finally decided by RP.No.165/08 2 the Panchayat. Smt.Sadhanakumar Eswari does not dispute Sri.John Mathew's submission that in the judgment as was dictated the direction as mentioned in the review petition was also there. I am therefore inclined to accept the review petitioner's case that it was due to the omission on the part of the stenographer that the direction does not find a place in the judgment as it was type written. Accordingly, allowing the review petition, it is ordered that till such time as Ext.R4(a) application is decided by the Panchayat, the petitioner will be entitled to conduct his poultry farm on the basis of the deemed licence. The Panchayat is directed to comply with the directions in the judgment to take an early decision on Ext.R4(a) immediately, that is, within a period of two weeks of receiving a copy of this order. It is made clear that the Panchayat will not be influenced at all by the circumstance that the review petitioner was permitted by this court to conduct poultry farm on the strength of a deemed licence, while taking final decision on Ext.R4(a). PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. RP.No.165/08 2