O R D E R

The above review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 06.01.2026 in WP(C) No.47553/2025. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the writ petition was disposed of without hearing the review petitioners. It is the definite case of the counsel for the review petitioners that he filed Vakalath for the party respondents in the writ petition and his name was not shown in the cause title. Hence, the direction in the judgment that there was no appearance for the party respondents is incorrect.

2. I think, there is some force in the argument of the review petitioners. Therefore, this Court heard the counsel for the review petitioners in detail. This Court already directed the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition to consider Ext.P6 and this Court clearly stated that, when Ext.P6 is considered, sufficient opportunity of hearing should be given to the writ petitioner and the review petitioners. No other directions are there in the judgment. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to review the judgment. I once again make it clear that, while passing orders, sufficient opportunity of hearing should also be given to the review petitioners.

With the