IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1170 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1363/2007 Dated 18/08/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER:RESPONDENT NO.1: --------------------------------------------- C.NARAYANA PILLAI, RETIRED DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, “RADHALAYAM”, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 006 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS:APPELLANTS & RESPONDENT NO.2: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.C.SOMAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION), KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD. R1-R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & ANTONY DOMINIC,JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.1170 of 2008 in W.A. No.1363 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 26th November, 2008 ORDER Antony Dominic,J. The review petitioner was the 1st petitioner in O.P.No.12208 of 1999. 2. Following the earlier judgment of this court, the O.P. was allowed and against that judgment, the State filed W.A.No.1363 of 2007. That Writ Appeal was heard along with a batch of Writ Appeals and was disposed of by a common judgment dated 18th August, 2007. However, this review has been sought on the basis that before the disposal of the Writ Appeal, notice was not served on the review petitioner. The review petitioner has produced as Annexure V, a general notice published by the appellant-State in newspaper and we notice that the number of the Writ Appeal was not mentioned in the notice. Hence, we are satisfied that there was no service of notice in the Writ Appeal filed against the judgment in review petitioner's case. 3. In view of the above factual position, we have heard the counsel for the review petitioner at length. However, on appreciating the contentions raised, we are satisfied that the common judgment R.P.No.1170/08 - 2 - rendered by the Division Bench on 18th August, 2007 fully covers the issue against the review petitioner and we are also informed that the said judgment has been confirmed by the Apex Court as per Annexure I order. In view of this, we do not find any reason to review the judgment as prayed for. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE srd ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE