IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 569 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 03/04/2009 IN WPC.9856/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC ---------------------------------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, BISON VALLEY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI. 3. SECRETARY, BISON VALLEY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI. BY MR.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN THE WPC --------------------------------- 1. BIJU.P.KURIEN,MAVELIL PERANGATTU HOUSE, KARIKULAM.P.O,RANNI,PATHANAMTHITTA REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOJAN KURIEN,S/O.MATHAI KURIEN, MAVELIL PERANGATTU HOUSE,KARIKULAM.P.O,RANI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SINDHU KURUVILA,W/O.BIJU.P.KURIEN, MAVELIL PERANGATTU HOUSE,KARIKULAM.PO,RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOJAN KURIEN,S/O.MATHA KURIEN,MAVELIL PERANGATTU HOUSE,KARIKULAM.P.O,RANNI,PATHANAMTHITTA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.569 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No.9856 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2009 O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of on 03/04/2009 directing that enquiry pursuant to Ext.P3 be completed within six weeks of production of a copy of the judgment, and that in the meanwhile, the writ petitioner will be permitted to complete the interior works subject to the out come of the enquiry. 2. The review petition is filed by the respondents in the writ petition, producing Annexure A communication dated 11/02/2009 by which the writ petitioners were informed that since identical issues are pending consideration of the High Court, final orders in their case will be passed only after the writ petitions are decided by the High Court. However, this communication, though the writ petitioners admit to have received, the same was not produced along with the writ petition. 3. In my view, the stand taken in Annexure A ought to have R.P.No.569/2009 -2- been considered at the time when the writ petition was heard. Therefore, for non-consideration of Annexure A, I am satisfied that the judgment needs to be recalled. Therefore, the review petition is allowed. The judgment is recalled. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg