IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 534 of 2011(W) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.7964/2001 DATED 8/06/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------- G.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.LATE P.K.GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT JAYA BHAVAN, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN, SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA. REVIEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME (SSA) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss RP.NO.534/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A1: JUDGMENT OF THE SESSIONS COURT DTD. 7/10/1995. ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER DTD. 19/06/1996. ANNEX.A3: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 27/09/2002. ANNEX.A4: COPY OF THE REFERRAL OP CARD DTD. 27/09/2002. ANNEX.A5: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF AIMS DTD. 8/07/2005. ANNEX.A6: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 17/02/2006. ANNEX.A7: COPY OF THE REFERRAL OP CARD DTD. 10/07/2007. ANNEX.A8: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 21/04/2008. ANNEX.A9: COPY OF THE MEDICAL BILL DTD. 4/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.534 of 2011 in O.P.No.7964 of 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. Order 1.This application for review is filed by the petitioner in the original petition. There is enormous delay in seeking review of the judgment, though statutorily, a time limit is not fixed for filing application for review. In trying to explain the delay of more than 1400 days, the petitioner projects a case where he suffered challenges to health relating to his heart. He points out that he had been in different hospitals following left ventricular failure and resultant situations, repeatedly. May be, the petitioner has made out reasonable excuse to be treated as sufficient cause for the purpose of entertaining the petition for review ignoring the delay in filing it. Be that as it may, what deserves to be looked into ultimately is as to whether any ground for review has been made out. 2.There is no dispute regarding the facts of the RP534/11 -: 2 :- case as reflected by the judgment sought to be reviewed. The petitioner, while in the police service, was found guilty of offences punishable under different provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. That was at a time while he was already under suspension following certain other criminal cases. Immediately following the conviction by the Court of Session, the Government dismissed the petitioner from service on the ground referable to conviction. With the passage of time, this Court in Crl.Appeal No.752 of 1995 & connected cases, sustained the conviction and sentence as regards certain co-accused but acquitted the petitioner. As observed in the judgment sought to be reviewed, that order of acquittal by the appellate court was not an acquittal free of all blemish, but technically, the order of dismissal from service, which was issued on the sole ground referable to conviction, thus became on a slippery foot. The Director General of Police, in that situation, sought Government's concurrence for initiating disciplinary proceedings against RP534/11 -: 3 :- the petitioner on the ground that he had undergone detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Government granted sanction as per the order which is Ext.P7 in the original petition. That decision of the Government itself was under challenge in the original petition. Such challenge was turned down as per the judgment sought to be reviewed. 3.The aforesaid facets would categorically show that there is no error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment and the grounds of review urged, do not appeal for entertaining this review petition. For the aforesaid reasons, this review petition fails even on merits and it does not deserve to be admitted. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sha/2008