IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1009 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37575/2009 Dated 05/08/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685/A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KOCHI-682 017. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.T.N.GIRIJA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------ 1. KANAKAM CHERIAN, BRANCH MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHERTHALA, RESIDING AT KARUMANCHERRY, ARTHUNKAL PO ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 688 530. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., P.B.NO.104, ALAPPUZH- 688 001. 3. SHERTHALAI COIR MATS AND MATTINGS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KALAVAMKODAM, CHERTHALA. 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER (COIR), O/O THE COIR PROJECT OFFICER, KANNAN VARKEY BRIDGE ALAPPUZHA- 688 001. R1 BY ADV.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN R2 BY ADV.P.K.VIJAYAMOHAN R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1009 OF 2010 IN W.P(C).No.37575 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 O R D E R This review petition is filed on the premise that the impugned judgment interdicts action against the third respondent society. Reading the first sentence in paragraph 4 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, this apprehension is totally misplaced. Equally is the apprehension that in terms of the judgment, the EPF Organisation can move the Government only. In fact, all statutory procedures, either against the third respondent or through the Government, are left open. The judgment only interdicts action against the writ petitioner personally. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to hold that there is any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment or any other ground to review the judgment. The review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.26/11.