IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 95 of 2011() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32302/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------- A.SHAMSUDHEEN,KANJIRAMVILA VEETTIL, KAREEPRA VILLAGE,KUZHIMATHIKKAD,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,SIDCO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.95 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32302 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 O R D E R WP(C) No.32302/2010 was filed by the petitioner claiming the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 21st of October 2010. In the judgment, the claim for One Time Settlement Scheme was rejected, but however, petitioner was allowed to repay the liability in instalments. 2. In this review petition, petitioner now points out that, in view of Annexure 1, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. The fact that Annexure I has been issued subsequent to the judgment does not indicate that the judgment is vitiated for any error. On the other hand, if by Annexure 1, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, it is clarified that the judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner claiming the said benefit. Review petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp