Perumbavoor Area Committee Of vs T.N.Ashok Kumar on 8 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 445 of 2009(N)


1. PERUMBAVOOR AREA COMMITTEE OF
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. T.N.ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLCTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL)

4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

5. SECRETARY, PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY,

6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :08/06/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                       R.P.No. 445 OF 2009
                                 IN
                W.P.(C) NO. 34781 OF 2008 (N)
                =====================

             Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009

                              O R D E R

The main grievance of the review petitioner, who was not a

party to the writ petition is about the observation in the 5th para of

the judgment to the effect that Ext.R4(a) does not indicate that

there is an approved auto stand in front of the writ petitioner’s

building at the M.C.Road. It is submitted that this inference was

drawn on the basis of Exts.R4(a)and (b) and that Ext.R4(b) is an

incorrect sketch. According to the petitioner, M.C.Road lies north-

south and not east-west as indicated in Ext.R4(b) sketch.

2. Irrespective of the correctness of the factual contention

that is now raised, the operative portion of the judgment shows

that the direction is that there shall not be any vehicle parking

obstructing ingress and egress to the petitioner’s building. The

observation in the judgment referring to Ext.R4(a) does not in any

manner affect such conclusion and therefore the said observation

is immaterial in so far as the final conclusion in the judgment is

concerned.

RP No.445/09
IN
WP(C) No.34781/08
:2 :

3. Therefore, I do not find any reason to review the

judgment and the review petition is dismissed.

Be that as it may, it is clarified that in any subsequent

proceedings, if the question as to whether there is any approved

auto parking in M.C.Road arises, it will be open to the petitioner or

anybody else to urge this contention in that behalf irrespective of

the aforesaid observation in the judgment.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp