IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 992 of 2009(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9942/2007 Dated 22/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- B.BHUVANENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR CLERK, ANAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PANAVOOR BRANCH, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ANAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.919, AND P.O., NEDUMANGAD - 695544, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.992 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 9942 OF 2007 (H) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 O R D E R The contentions justifying the prayer for review of judgment raised are two fold. One is that Ext.P7 has been upheld by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment in WA No.1613/06 and therefore this court should not have set aside Ext.P7 and directed consideration of Ext.P10. In so far as this contention is concerned, in Ext.P9 judgment, apart from referring to Ext.P15, which is Ext.P7 herein, it has not dealt with the validity or otherwise of the said order. On the other hand, the petitioner therein was given freedom to pursue his remedies against the said order. Therefore, this contention is incorrect. 2. The second contention raised is that Ext.P7 is an order issued by the Government and Ext.P10 representation filed against the said order is a non statutory one and therefore this Court should not have directed its consideration. A reading of the counter affidavit filed by the review petitioner, who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, shows that no such contention R.P.No.992 OF 2009 IN WPC 9942/07 :2 : was raised in the pleadings. The judgment also shows that this contention was not even urged at the time of hearing. If so, the said contention cannot be entertained in a review petition. Review petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp