IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 558 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23502/2008 Dated 04/09/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE ARMY MEDICAL CORPS RECORDS, LUCKNOW. 2. THE GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING 31 ARMED DIVISION, C/O.56 APO. 3. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF, ARMY HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI. 4. SECRETARY TO DEFENCE, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 5. UNION OF INDIA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEFENCE, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, ADDL.CGSC RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- RAJESH U.,S/O.KUNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, KALAYALAM HOUSE, AIROOVAN P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. MR. JOHNSON MANAYANI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 558 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th June, 2009. O R D E R The respondents in W.P(C) No. 23502/2008 have filed this review petition seeking review of my judgment dated 4-9-2008 in the said writ petition. By that judgment, I directed the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P9 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Now, the petitioners in the review petition submit that since the writ petition was disposed of at the time of admission, the question of jurisdiction and as to whether a further appeal would lie against Ext. P8 order, has not been properly considered by this Court. 2. I have heard the learned Central Government counsel. 3. From the proceedings , I find that the writ petition originally came up for admission on 5-8-2008. On that day, the Assistant Solicitor General was directed to get instructions in the matter. It came up again on 18-8-2008, on which date, this Court passed the following order: “The learned standing counsel for the respondents to ascertain and submit whether Ext. P9 revision is maintainable from Ext. P8 order passed by the Chief of the Army Staff.” The writ petition again came up on 4-9-2008, on which date also no instructions were forthcoming and the writ petition was heard and R.P. No. 558/09 -: 2 :- disposed of. This Court only directed disposal of Ext. P9 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 4. I do not think that the petitioners in the review petition have made out a case for review of the judgment as such. If they are aggrieved by the judgment, their remedy lies in filing an appeal against that judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.