IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1058 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.11634/2009 DATED 25/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- M.A.RASIQUE,VELLIZHIKYM,MRA 7/A, MUNDAYIL,VARKKALA AS POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER OF NAZAR ABDUL HAMEED,6B,HEERA TWINS, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. T.VARGHESE GEORGE,S/O.LATE T.G.VARGHESE, (ORIGINAL PETITIONER),RESIDING AT PHA (12TH FLOOR) HEERA TWINS,PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM. 2. HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., (ORIGINAL 2ND RESPONDENT),M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHAKKADU,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (ORIGINAL 3RD RESPONDENT), REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,CORPORATION BUILDINGS, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV. MR. R.S.KALKURA, R2 BY MR. T.M. CHANDRAN, R3 BY MR. P.K. MANOJ KUMAR, R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHANAN, J. -------------------------------- R.P.No. 1058 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No.11634 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of November, 2009 O R D E R ~~~~~~~~~~ The order sought to be reviewed is issued only on the ground that the builder, namely, Heera Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ought to have been heard by the Tribunal before issuing Ext.P25 decision. The builder has a direct and substantial stake when a matter relating to the structure built by it is under consideration of the Tribunal for LSGI. This is not merely referable to the subsisting title of the builder either on the building or on the fractional interest on the land. The question will have different manifestations. This is so because, the law relating to the construction of building including the Kerala Municipality Act and the KMBR could even visit the builder with penal consequences. I, therefore, do not find any ground to review the judgment merely on the ground that the Tribunal had answered a particular issue. The judgment sought to be reviewed was issued holding that without hearing the builder, the Tribunal ought not have answered that issue. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment or any other reason to review the judgment under attack. Review Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHANAN, JUDGE ps