ORDER

Antony Dominic,J.

The first respondent in W.A. No. 1912 of 2016 is the review petitioner. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed W.P.(C) No. 18680 of 2016 challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent rejecting his prayer for modification of the timings sought by him. By judgment dated 05.07.2016, the writ petition was disposed of setting aside Ext.P5 order and directing re-consideration of the matter as ordered in paragraph 8 of the judgment. Contending that Ext.P5 order was passed considering his objection also and that he was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition, the first respondent herein filed W.A. No. 1912 of 2016 after obtaining leave of this Court. Leave was granted and by judgment dated 28.09.2016, the writ appeal was allowed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties in the writ petition. It is this judgment which is sought to be reviewed.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government R.P. No. 1045/2016 -2-

Pleader appearing for the second respondent.

3. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that before the writ a