IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 921 of 2009(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18079/2008 Dated 16/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1-3: -------------------------------------- 1. DISTRICT NIRMITHI KENDRA, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT MANAGER & EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN, NIRMITHI KENDRA, THRISSUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & SECRETARY, NIRMITHI KENDRA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.A.SURESAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. MACRO ENTERPRISES, CC 28/1559,PUTHIA ROAD, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, COCHIN 682 020 HEAD OFFICE AT 137-A, RKP PLAZA, 100 FEET ROAD, GANDIPURAM COIMBATORE-12, AT PRESENT HAVING THE ADDRESS AS 208/301, SHRIVATSA SIVA COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD, COIMBATORE-12,REP.BY A.N.MOHAMED @ A NAIMAR MOHAMMED 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN BY ADV. MR. SAJAN VARGHESE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... R.P. No. 921 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner in this review petition is the 1st respondent in W.P(C) No. 18079 of 2008. That writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent hereunder, seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse the amounts due to the 1st respondent for carrying out certain construction works on behalf of the 1st respondent. In that writ petition, I passed judgment dated 16.6.2009, operative portion of which reads thus: “4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I find that even in statement, there is no allegation against the petitioner as such. The allegation appears to be against the Nirmidhi Kendra Authorities and the District Collector. There is not even a suggestion that the petitioner has anything to do with the alleged irregularities. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that, the respondents can be directed to disburse the amounts due to the petitioner in respect of the work done by him pursuant to Ext.P2, on the petitioner furnishing security for the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall produce bank guarantee for half of the amount due to him and security by way of mortgage, by deposit of title deeds of immovable property, for the balance. On furnishing such security, the amounts due to the petitioner shall be disbursed to the petitioner within one month therefrom. The security furnished shall be released, if in the vigilance R.P. No. 921 of 2009 -2- case it is found that the petitioner is in no way responsible for any irregularities in the matter.” 2. The petitioner submits that according to the petitioner only an amount of Rs.51,923/- is due to the 1st respondent and the judgment is likely be construed to mean that the petitioner is entitled to the entire amount demanded by him. I do not think that there is any basis for that apprehension in so far as what I have directed is that on furnishing security as directed in the judgment, the amounts due to the petitioner shall be disbursed to the petitioner within one month therefrom. Therefore, I do not think that there are any grounds for review of the judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs