IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 647 of 2008(R) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.1621/2001 Dated 07/04/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER:RESPONDENTS IN OP: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR HEARING IMPAIRED, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN THE OP: ---------------------------------------------------------- P.V.ANTONY, PUTHENPARAMBIL, PURAKKAD P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI. ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.647/2008 in O.P.1621/2001-R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Adv.Sri.Paul Abraham Vakanal takes notice for the respondent, who is the writ petitioner. 2.Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the review petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent in relation to the review petition. 3.Two issues are raised. 4.Firstly, it is contended that though an order of compensation for Rs.5 lacs was ordered, the writ petitioner was already paid an amount of Rs.2 RP647/2008 -: 2 :- lacs by the Government during the pendency of the writ petition as an ex-gratia payment. This fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, I deem it abundantly proper to exercise the power of review and modify the impugned judgment by ordering that the said payment of Rs.2 lacs will be given due credit to, while releasing the balance amount in terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed. I do so. 5.The second contention is that there was no prayer for interest and therefore, the judgment sought to be reviewed in so far as it grants an order for payment of interest is in excess of jurisdiction. This is not so. When an order, particularly in compensatory jurisdiction is being exercised, it is well within the power and competence, particularly of the writ court, to issue an order for such interest as may be found necessary to run on the compensation amount, having regard to the time lag during which the matter was pending. Hence, that ground is rejected. RP647/2008 -: 3 :- The review petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/250608