IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 220 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.25383/2010 DTD. 16/08/2010] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- C.V.ANILKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. M.VASU, (RETD. SECTION ENGINEER/WORKS/ SOUTHERN RAILWAY/ OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ERNAKULAM JUNCTION) RESIDING AT NO.A-53, MAIN ROAD,GIRI NAGAR NORTH, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682 020. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN.P.O., CHENNAI-3. 4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY/CONSTRUCTION,EGMORE, CHENNAI-8. 5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-14. 6. THE MEMBER ENGINEERING,RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN,NEW DELHI. BY SRI. SUNIL NATH, S.C, RAILWAYS. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.220 of 2011 in W.P.(C).No.25383 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011. Order Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner quite in extenso. He says that the observation in the order sought to be reviewed that there is no specific challenge to the findings and quality of appreciation of evidence is not correct in the light of the grounds raised in the original application filed before the Tribunal. He further says that the Railways' stand that the other co-delinquents had also suffered punishment does not stand on facts. We are of the view that these are not grounds that RP220/11 -: 2 :- would sustain an application for review. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment or any other ground to review the judgment. The review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/1804