IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 310 of 2009(M) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16713/2008 Dated 24/11/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN W.P.(C) --------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC. ------------------------- 1. N.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANAN PILLAI, AGED 56 RETIRED DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT 'NANDANAM' PUTHENSANKETHAM, KOIVILA PO, KOLLAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.C.K.PAVITHRAN FOR R1 SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R2 & R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- R.P.No.310 of 2009 in W.P.(C)No.16713 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated 27th March, 2009 ORDER Heard Smt.Molly Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, Sri.C.K.Pavithran, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner and Sri.A.J.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 2. In this review petition, respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C) No.16713 of 2008 seek a review of the judgment dated 24.11.2008 by which they were directed to disburse to the writ petitioner, the terminal benefits that he is entitled to after withholding the sum of Rs.9,836/- referred to in Ext.P4. It is submitted that besides the said sum other amounts are also due from the petitioner. The details thereof are set out in sub-paragraphs 1 to 6 of paragraph 2 of the review petition. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submits that since the writ petitioner had referred only to Ext.P4, a counter affidavit was filed only with reference to that aspect. The review petitioners submit that, in these circumstances the judgment delivered on 24.11.2008 may be reviewed. R.P.310/2009 in WP(C).No.16713/2008 2 3. The writ petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2007. Even while he was in service, various amounts had been fixed as his liability. In respect of the same, he had also filed appeals before the Government and the Commissioner of Civil Supplies Corporation. Therefore, the writ petitioner had a duty to disclose the said facts to this Court. Instead he filed the writ petition giving the impression that the only amount fixed as his liability is the amount covered by Ext.P4. I am therefore satisfied that the writ petitioner had suppressed material facts from this Court. In these circumstances, the judgment dated 24.11.2008 in W.P.(C)No.16713 of 2008 is reviewed and recalled. The registry is directed to post the writ petition for hearing as per roster. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS