IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 1005 of 2010(E) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8043/2010 Dated 19/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------ VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP,BY ITS SECRETARY, VARANDARAPPILLY PO,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SECTION, VARANDARAPPILLY,PIN-680 303. 2. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR 680 303. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA- 680121. R1 & R3 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 1005 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 19th day of November, 2010 ORDER This Petition has been filed seeking to review judgment dated 19.03.2010 in W.P. (C) 8043 of 2010. 2. The case of the review petitioner is that, subsequent to the judgment passed as above, in respect of some similar matter wherein the very same review petitioner/Panchayath is involved, this Court has passed Annexure 1 verdict, whereby no primary duty to satisfy the disputed liability is mulcted on the shoulders of the Panchayath and hence seeks for a similar benefit and thereby to delete the direction to deposit a sum of `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as ordered in the judgment dated 19.03.2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents at length. 3. Going by the materials on record, it is very much clear that no merits were discussed while passing the verdict in W.P.(C) No. 8043 of 2010 and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction was given to the third R.P. No. 1005 of 2010 2 respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 was recorded and the matter was disposed of accordingly. The coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts. P1 and P2 were ordered to be kept in abeyance, on condition that, the petitioner deposited a sum of `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) within 10 days in the meanwhile. 4. Coming to Annexure 1 verdict, the same was passed in a different writ petition, of course after discussing the merits involved. The said judgment was passed on 27.07.2010 i.e. nearly four months after passing the impugned judgment in the present case. Relying on the said verdict (Annexure 1), which was passed on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the said writ petition, is not a ground to review the judgment passed pursuant to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as mentioned hereinbefore. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition was only to have considered Ext. P3 representation and this being the position, the review petitioner is not justified in approaching the Court seeking for the benefit as given in Annexure A1 verdict, passed on a subsequent date. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, there is no merits or bonafides in the submission on behalf of the review petitioner. R.P. No. 1005 of 2010 3 There is 'no error apparent on the face of the records', so as to invoke the power of review. The review petition is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd