IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 752 of 2010(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18105/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- MATHEW CHERIAN, NATIONAL HOUSE, MANORAMA JUNCTION, S.A.ROAD, KOCHI-682016. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SECTION, GIRINAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM 3. ANTONY JOSEPH, METER READER, K.S.E.B.SECTION OFFICE,GIRINAGAR ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- R.P. No.752 of 2010 IN W.P(C) NO.18105 OF 2010-(K) ---------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The Review Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to reconsider the matter, which has been finalized by this Court as per the judgment dated 12.7.2010 in W.P(C)No.18105 of 2010. The crux of the case raised in the review petition is that the petitioner could not earlier substantiate the position, by requesting for issuance of an Advocate Commission, so as to ascertain the factual particulars, which accordingly is sought for by filing a separate petition as I.A.No.448 of 2010. The petitioner has also produced some photographs, in support of the contentions raised. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for other side as well. 3. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that there is 'no error apparent on the face of the records', so as to sustain the review. The remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved, is to challenge the verdict by way of appeal. The scope of interference R.P. No.752 of 2010 2 invoking the power of Review Petition has been explained by the Apex Court in Meera Bhanja V. Nirmala Kumar Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC 455), making it clear that, it is not a substitute for appeal. Interference is declined and the Review Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab