IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1147 of 2009(G) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.8887/1997 OF THIS COURT. REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------- SMM STEEL RE ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD., 100 AVARAM PALAYAM ROAD, GANAPATHY, COIMBATORE REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNTS MANAGER SHAJI MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT), GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY TIS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVIEW), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KANJIKODE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, ALONG WITH R.P. 754/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & M.N. KRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NOS. 754/2009 IN O.P. 10736/1997 & 1147/2009 IN O.P. 8887/ 1997 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. Petitioners seek to review the judgment dated 17th day of January, 2005. As a matter of fact, the original petitions were disposed of by a common judgment by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (M.N. Krishnan, J.) was a party. Merits of the contentions raised in the writ petitions were not considered, rather a direction was issued to the Electricity Board to consider and dispose of the petitioners' grievance, after taking note of the judgment rendered in O.P. 9214/1998 and connected cases. 2. According to the petitioners, the Board has rejected their contentions against which they have already approached this Court by filing WP(C) 18784/2006 and W.P.(C) 10832/2009. Since the judgment has already been implemented, we can not review the judgment. However, we make it clear that in so far as the writ petitions are not R.P.NOS. 1147 & 754/09 2 disposed of on merits and since both sides conceded that the judgment in O.P. 9214/1998 is not on the issue raised in the writ petitions disposed of by the common judgment dated 17.1.2005, the contentions raised by the petitioners are left open and the judgment will not prejudicially affect their right. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-