IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 1088 of 2009(C) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.11789/1997 REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER -------------------------------- AGNI STEELS PVT. LTD., 58 A PERUNDURAI ROAD, G.R.COMPLEX, OPP. RANA, ERODE-635 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER A DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. S.C. FOR K.S.E.B. SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 186/2009 & R.P. 1088/2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. O R D E R Krishnan, J. Learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay. But on a perusal of the judgment, it is seen that the Court has referred to a judgment which might not have any relevance and therefore, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned. 2. Heard. Petitioner seek to review the judgment dated 28.2.2005. Originally, the matter was disposed of with a direction to the respondent therein to take note of the judgment dated 13.11.1988 in O.P. 9214/1998 and connected cases and to give the petitioner the benefit if they satisfy the conditions laid down in the said judgment. 3. Now, it is submitted that the Board has rejected their contentions against which they have filed WP(C) 24077/2005. Since the judgment has already been implemented by the respondents, the question of reviewing the same does not arise. However, we make it clear that in so far as the writ petitions are not disposed of on merits and since both sides conceded that the judgment in O.P. 9214/1998 is not on the issue raised in the writ CM APPLN. 186/09 & RP 1088/2009 2 petitions disposed of by judgment dated 28.2.2005, the contentions raised by the petitioner is left open and this judgment will not prejudicially affect his right. However, it is made clear that both parties are at liberty to raise their contentions in the writ petitions which is pending consideration. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE). knc/-