IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 56 of 2011(R) -------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.31447/2003 DT 2/8/2010) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR, K.S.E.BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- M.C.PADMANABHAN, S/O. K.T.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, AGED 56 YEARS, ASST. ENGINEER(CIVIL) (RETD.), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KANNUR, RESIDING AT ANJALI, KELTRON NAGAR, KANNUR DISTRICT. SRI.P.M.PAREETH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.56 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 31447 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The only ground on which review of the judgment is sought is that the Board order dated 6/1/03 adopting Ext.P2 has been cancelled as per A1 order dated 21/12/2004. 2. When the review petition came up for orders on 27/1/11, after hearing the submission made by the parties, this Court directed the counsel for the review petitioners to clarify whether Annexure A1 order dated 21/12/04 was pursuant to a Board decision to cancel the order dated 6/1/03. 3. Today when the matter came up, learned counsel for the Board has conceded that there has not been any Board decision in this behalf. It is also submitted that Annexure A1 has been issued based on the decision taken by the full time members of the Board. Evidently, therefore, Annexure A1 cannot result in cancellation of the Board order dated 6/1/03 adopting Ext.P2. If that be so, it cannot be concluded that there is any error in the R.P.No.56 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 31447 OF 2003 :2 : judgment. Therefore, review petition is to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp