IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 39 of 2011(J) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15003/2005 Dated 16/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER AND SECRETARY TO EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND, KSE BOARD, VYDYUTI BHAVANANM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- C.A.FELIX, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RETD.) KSEB, 6 KV SUB-STATION, VAZHATHOPE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT FOUSI NIVAS, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI-685 602. BY ADV.SRI.JOHNSON .P.JOHN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- R.P.NO.39 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) No.15003 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 ORDER This review petition is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board seeking review of my judgment dated 16.9.2010 in W.P(C) No.15003/2005. The ground for review is that because no counter affidavit has been filed, the Board could not place, before this Court, their contentions properly. It is submitted that even without the counter affidavit, this Court could have considered the reasons for denying benefit to the petitioner as contained in Ext.P13 order in the writ petition. I have heard both sides. It is true that I have stated in the judgment that since the respondents have not chosen to file a counter affidavit to controvert the averments in the writ petition, I accept the same as true and correct. But that does not mean that I have not considered the matter on merits. In fact, I had considered the matter on merits and took a compassionate and R.P.No.39./11 inW.P(c)No.15003/05 2 lenient view in favour of the petitioner. Perhaps another person may have taken a more technical view. That is no reason for review of my judgment. I have taken a view, the correctness of which has to be challenged in an appeal. The fact that, that view is not acceptable to the Board is no ground for a review. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd R.P.No.39./11 inW.P(c)No.15003/05 3