IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 968 of 2010(P) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29744/2010 Dated 01/10/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------------- JOSEPH RODOLPH CORREYA,AGED, S/O.AMDREW J. CORREYA, CHERULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SAHANKARANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY(PO), ERNAKULM DISTRICT PIN- 682 024. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 004. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KERALA STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM PIN- 683 104. 4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICTY REGULATORY COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 004. R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC,KSEB. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- R.P.No.968 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.29744 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 1st November, 2010 ORDER This review petition is filed against the interim order dated 1.10.2010 passed in W.P.(C)No.29744 of 2010. As per the same, an interim direction was issued to reconnect the electrical connection to Consumer No.6561 provided, the petitioner pays the amount covered as per Ext.P1 and the reconnection charges. It was further ordered therein that in case the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition the amount paid in excess will have to be either refunded or adjusted in future bills. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner as also the learned standing counsel. I have also gone through the grounds raised in the review petition as (a) to (m). 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and having carefully considered the aforementioned grounds, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to bring out the error that is apparent on the face of the record inviting interference under the review jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the interim order dated 1.10.2010 calls for no review as prayed for by the review petitioner. The review petition is accordingly, dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS