AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—In WP(C) No. 1590/11, judgment was rendered on 17th January, 2011 directing that the 5th Respondent shall consider Ext.P5 revision filed by the writ Petitioner and that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P8 shall be kept in abeyance.
The main grievance raised in the review petition is that it was at the instance of the review Petitioner that the proceedings which led to the revision petition were issued and the review Petitioner being an interested party, should have been made a party in the writ petition. According to him, at any rate, he should also be heard when the revision petition is considered by the 5th Respondent.
I heard the learned Counsel for the review Petitioner and also the writ Petitioner, the 1st Respondent herein.
Having gone through the pleadings in the review petition and also hearing counsel on either side, I am satisfied that there is substance in what is contended. Therefore, the review Petitioner is also entitled to be heard as and when the revision petition is taken up for hearing as directed in the judgment. In that view, the judgment in the writ petition will stand reviewed and it is directed that, as ordered therein, when Ext.P5 revision petition is considered by the 5th Respondent, notice shall be issued not only to the writ Petitioner, but also to the review Petitioner herein and they shall also be heard.
Review Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the 5th Respondent for compliance.
Review petition is disposed of as above.