IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 356 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.438/2009 Dated 25/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN WRIT APPEAL: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.A.JOSE, S/O.LATE ANTONY, KEKKARIKKATTU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR POST, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. 2. K.V.THOMAS, S/O.K.J.VARGHESE, KAPPIYIL HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR KARA & POST, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WRIT APPEAL: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHY BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., TRANSMISSION DIVISION, POOVANTHURUTHU POST, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRIAPPALLY. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANIMALA VILLAGE, MANIMALA POST, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. R1 & R2 BY SRI.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB. R3 TO R6 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K.MEERA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & V.Giri, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.No.356 of 2009 in W.A. No.438 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 3rd day of April, 2009 ORDER S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This review petition is filed challenging the order dated 25th February, 2009 passed by the Division Bench. The writ appeal was rejected on the ground that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that in the absence of any mala fides or materials, it is not possible to interfere with the decision taken by the Electricity Board. Now it is contended that the fact as argued and found in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment regarding setting up of the sub station requires reconsideration as the statement is factually incorrect. 2. On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, it is to be noted that, that was not a ground taken into consideration by the Division Bench as it was only an R.P. No.356 of 2009 - 2 - observation and the writ appeal came to be dismissed only on the ground of absence of proof of any mala fides on the part of the authorities. Hence, we see no grounds made out for reviewing the order as required under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review petition stands dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice V.Giri, Judge vns