IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1077 of 2010(N) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26383/2005 Dated 01/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENSERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT & ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 I THE WPC: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.SURESH, S/O.KUTTAPPA PANICKER, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMMANKOVIL STREET, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA (DIED ON 29/8/2009). 2. P.K.HARILAL, TECHNO ENGINEERING WORKS, P.O.PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6: 3. GIRIJA, W/O.P.K.SURESH, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMMANKOVIL STREET, MULLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA. 4. HARIKRISHNAN, S/O.P.K.SURESH, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMMANKOVIL STREET, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. 5. MURALEEKRISHNAN, S/O.P.K.SURESH, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMMANKOVIL STREET, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. 6. YADUKRISHNAN, S/O.P.K.SURESH, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMMANKOVIL STREET, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. ADDL.R3 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- R.P.No.1077 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.26383 of 2005 ---------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 ORDER This review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 1.12.2009 in W.P.(C)No.26383 of 2005. Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the review petitioners. As already noticed hereinbefore the judgment under review was rendered as early as on 1.12.2009 and this review petition has been filed only on 25.11.2010. Admittedly, there occurred a delay of 319 days in filing the review petition. In the light of the decision of this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others v. Aswathy Elsa Mathew (ILR 2008 (2) Kerala 298) separate application to condone the delay is not necessary. Even then, the delay has to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court in case it exceeds a period of 30 days. In this case, delay was explained thus:- “It is submitted that in order to verify the facts, it took some time and hence there occurred a delay of 319 days and the same may be condoned.” Besides the same there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay. The above extracted statement cannot be construed as satisfactory explanation for the long delay of 319 days. Therefore, I am not inclined to condone the delay in filing the review petition. That apart, on going R.P.1077/2010 2 through the grounds raised in this review petition it is evident that no error apparent on the face of the records has been brought out warranting exercise of review jurisdiction in this case. In the circumstances, this review petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge