IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 563 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15676/2010 Dated 21/05/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY: -------------------------------------- ALEX MATHEW, AGED 43, S/O MATHEW, TC.4/1074, KAIPALLIL, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL NAZER, TC XVI/127, EASWARA VILASAM ROAD, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP.BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.ADV.SHRI K.P.DANDAPANI FOR R1 ADV.SHRI P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH ADV.SHRI P.K.MANOJ KUMAR FOR R2 & R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- R.P.No.563 OF 2010 in W.P(C)No.15676 OF 2010 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JUNE, 2010 O R D E R The learned Senior Counsel Shri K.P.Dandapani takes notice for the 1st respondent. The learned Standing Counsel Shri P.K.Manoj Kumar takes notice for respondents 2 and 3. 2. When the Review Petition came up for admission, arguments are addressed by both parties and therefore the Review Petition itself is being disposed of . 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Shri K.P.Dandapani and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 Shri P.K.Manoj Kumar. 4. The review petitioner herein is aggrieved by the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 21.5.2010. It is pointed out that the direction to consider Exhibit P27 will really give a wider handle to the petitioner in the Writ Petition and according to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, R.P.No.563/10 -2- certain other aspects which were not governed by the directions issued by the Tribunal as per Exhibit P25 are now sought to be agitated by filing Ext 27 representation before the Secretary of the corporation. 5. The learned Tribunal in Exhibit P25 has issued the following directions in the operative portion of the order. “In the result the Appeal is allowed. The impugned order rejection application for regularisation and the impugned provisional order and notice issued under Section 406(1) and (2) of the Kerala Municipality Act are set aside. The Secretary of the Corporation is directed to pass fresh proper orders as per Rule 146 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, within one month from today, on the application dated 28.7.2009 submitted by the appellant.” 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment, the hearing of both parties was completed on 21.6.2010. But no orders have been passed so far. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the Secretary can conduct a re-hearing of the matter in the light of the objections raised by the review petitioner herein and any R.P.No.563/10 -3- directions issued by the Tribunal, with notice to both parties. 7. The learned counsel for the review petitioner also submitted that there is no objection for such a procedure. In that view of the matter, the operative portion of the judgment is modified in the following manner. 8. The Secretary of the Municipality will conduct a hearing in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal as per Exhibit P25 with notice to the review petitioner and the writ petitioner. Such a hearing will be conducted and a decision will be taken, after notice to both parties, within a period of two weeks . The Review Petition is accordingly disposed of . T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn