AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ravi, J
The review petition has been filed alleging that Ext.P5 application which is directed to be disposed of has not been received. In paragraph 3 of the review petition, it is stated that reference application dated 21.11.2007 is not received and it is not seen entered in the inward register but it is seen in the file at Page No.45. It is also stated that there is a duplication of Page No.45, since a cheque application bearing the initial of the Officer, dated 14.11.2007 is also seen with the same number. It is hence submitted that the petitioners have not established the receipt of Ext.P4. I do not think there is any ground for review. The petitioners need not establish receipt of the application by the respondents particularly since in Ext.P11 it is admitted that Ext.P5 has been received. The review petitioners do not disown Ext.P11 which is part of the file. Ext.P11 refers to the application dated 21.11.2007 and rejects it without any reasoning. It is in the above circumstances, that a direction is issued in the writ petition.
The Government Pleader submits that it would appear from the judgment sought to be reviewed that there was a concession that Ext.P11 is not a reasoned order. It is made clear that the judgment is not based on any concession. It is obvious from a reading of Ext.P11 that it is not a reasoned order and Ext.P11 refers to Ext.P5 also. Even without any concession from the Government Pleader on the facts which have been proved before the Court I do not find any reason to review the judgment.
No grounds made out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.