IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 112 of 2003(B) ---------------------- ELEOP.521/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------- KELU NAIR T., S/O.PAITHAL, THAZHA PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUR AMSOM, CHENDAYAD DESOM, P.O.CHENDAYAD. ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.112 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 O R D E R The revision which had been disposed of by order dated 17.3.2010 has again been placed before me by the registry on receiving a communication from the Additional District Judge, Thalassery, informing that the order challenged in the above revision had been set aside and the case remitted for fresh consideration by the orders passed earlier in another revision. The present revision had been disposed of confirming the order passed by the court below, and so much so, as against the same order passed by the court below, two orders conflicting to one another in two revisions filed separately are now prevailing. 2. The registry has reported that the two revisions had been filed by two different Standing Counsels of the petitioner, a statutory authority, separately against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Thalassery, in O.P.No.521 of 1999. It C.R.P.NO.112/03 2 is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the present revision, C.R.P.No.112 of 2003, was filed earlier in point of time but, before its disposal, another Standing Counsel of the Board had filed the other revision, C.R.P.No.1395 of 2003 against the very same order of the court below, and that revision had been disposed of by order dated 8.1.2008. Without noticing the filing of the subsequent revision and its disposal earlier, it is submitted, this revision was also argued on merits resulting in passing of an order conflicting with that of the order passed in C.R.P.No.1395 of 2003. The counsel has expressed deep regret for the resultant situation emerging from two conflicting orders and also the inconvenience caused to the court. I do not find any reason to hold that the filing of the two revisions against the very same order was on account of any willful default or culpable neglect on the part of the respective counsel of the petitioner, a statutory authority. All the same, there was lack of care on the part of both the counsel in prosecuting such revisions resulting in conflicting orders. The registry also cannot be absolved of the blame when two such C.R.P.NO.112/03 3 revisions have been received and numbered on the file of the court and that was not taken notice of despite disposal of one among the revisions, and thus, avoid any further orders on the pending second revision. Whatever that be, in the facts and circumstances presented, it has to be stated that the order passed by this Court in the present revision cannot stand in view of the disposal of C.R.P.No.1395 of 2003 by order dated 8.1.2008, which was earlier in point of time. So much so, the order passed in the revision, C.R.P.No.112 of 2003, is ordered to be withdrawn and that revision shall stand dismissed as not entertainable. Inform the Additional District Judge, Thalassery by forwarding a copy of this order so that the disposal of the O.P. can be taken up as directed in the order in C.R.P.No.1395 of 2003, in accordance with law. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.112 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 9th day of July, 2010 C.R.P.NO.112/03 5