IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 292 of 2010(D)
1. R.RAMAKRISHNAN,M/S.NARMADA,K.K.ROAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF
3. SENIOR TOWN PLANNER(VIGILANCE),
4. BABU JOHN, SKY JWELLERY,
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
R.P. 292/2010 in W.P.(C).7231/2010
--------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010
ORDER
The writ petition filed by the 4th respondent was disposed
of by judgment dated 9.3.2010, after hearing the review
petitioner also, directing the 2nd respondent herein to pass
orders on the representations made by both parties, pursuant to
which they were also heard on 17.2.2010.
2. Subsequently this Review Petition is filed by the 4th
respondent in the writ petition, contending mainly that under the
cover of the representation and the judgment, what is sought
to be achieved by the writ petitioner was to get the building
permit issued by the Secretary of the Kottayam Municipality
invalidated by the Government for which the Government does
not have any power.
3. A reading of the judgment shows that this Court has only
directed the Secretary to decide on the representation made. It
was also clarified that this Court did not express anything on the
merits of the contentions raised. Therefore if at all the review
R.P.292/10
2
petitioner has a case that the issue canvassed by the writ
petitioner before the Government was something beyond the
jurisdiction of the Government, it is always open to the review
petitioner to canvass that issue and it is also open to the
Government to decide on the issue in accordance with law. This
freedom of the Government is not in any manner affected by the
direction in this judgment
4. Insofar as the specific apprehension of the review
petitioner that by the representation what is sought to be
achieved by the writ petitioner was to get the proceedings of the
Secretary which are appealable before the Tribunal for Local Self
Government Institutions, invalidated by the Government, it is
clarified that by the judgment under review, this Court does not
confer jurisdiction on the Government to decide or pass orders
on any issue on which it otherwise does not have jurisdiction.
Clarifying the matter as above, Review Petition is
disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs