(1.) THE review applicant is the petitioner in W.P.No.27513 of 2012. In the said writ petition, he made a challenge to the communication of the 1st respondent dated 24.4.2012 in Roc.No.209/2012/RTI and directing the 2nd respondent to furnish information as per his request made in RTI Application dated 09.4.2012. W.P.No.27513 of 2012, came to be dismissed on 25.10.2013 and to review the said order, the review applicant has filed the present review application.
(2.) MR . M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicant has vehemently contended that the reason for compulsorily retiring the review applicant, is based on the latest vigilance report and inspite of his request, it was not furnished and if the said information is furnished, he may be able to work out his further remedy in accordance with law.
(3.) MR . P. K. Rajagopal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that whatever the materials available on the file of the respondents, have been furnished. The learned counsel would submit that review applicant cannot re -open the issue once again when the matter has reached finality by virtue of dismissal of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16500 of 2006, dated 16.10.2006 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and prays for dismissal of the review application.