IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 874 of 2010(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7500/2009 Dated 27/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETRY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER,PWD ROAD & BUILDINGS, NEAR MUSEUM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS & BRIDGES,PWD ,NORTH CIRCLE,KOZHIKODE. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD DIVISION, MANJERI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JAIBY PAUL RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------- V.P.THRIMATHY, S/O.V.P.CHERIYAPPU HAJI, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, EDAVANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R1 SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU FOR R1 SRI.JAGAN GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.P.G.PRAMOD FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, ALONG WITH RP NO. 897 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- R.P Nos.874 OF 2010 AND 897 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March 2011 ORDER Both these Review Petitions have been filed at the instance of the Government/department seeking to review the judgment dated 27-08-2009 in W.P.(C) No.7500/2009 and 7503/2009. 2. The case as projected in the Review Petitions is that the verdict happened to be passed by a learned Judge of this Court, merely on the basis of the contents in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, as to the amount stated as due to the petitioner and as to the sanction to be given by the Govt. for the reversed estimate. Pointing out that the said reason alone is not the actual hurdle, these Review Petitions have been filed, referring to the subsequent developments as well. 3. It is sated that, while considering the question of revising the estimate, the Technical Inspection Wing of the Finance department conducted an on the site inspection to make a random quantification of the additional work said to have been done by the writ petitioner. The said inspection is stated as done on30-06-2010 by the Chief Technical Examiner and the Ex-Official Technical Inspection Wing of the Finance Department of the Govt. of Kerala. It is stated that some incriminating circumstances came to be noted in R.P. Nos. 874/2010 and 897/2010 - 2 - the course of such inspection, which necessitated a further probe and is in the said circumstance that, the amount sought to be disbursed to the writ petitioner is not effected. 4. Heard the learned Govt. pleader appearing for the Review petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner who is the respondent herein. 5. Obviously, the reason stated in the Review Petitions seeking to have the judgment reviewed is with reference to the outcome of the inspection on 30-06-2010, ie, much after passing the impugned judgment on 27-08-2009. Going by the admitted facts and merits, this Court finds that the inspection conducted on 30-06-2010 or the subsequent developments cannot constitute any “error apparent on the face of the records” as on the date of passing the judgment on 27-08-2009. The scope of 'Review' stands well defined by the Apex Court in Meera Bhaiya's case (AIR 1995 SC 455) alerting that, it is not a substitute for appeal. 6. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that there is no merit in the Review Petitions as there is “no error apparent on the face of the records” while passing of the judgment. Both these Review Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE