IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 59 of 2009(E) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32805/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4: 1. MANIYAMMA, AGED 87 YERRS, W/O.LATE GOVINDAN, KOLASSERIL HOUSE, IRUTTUKANAM KARA, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 2. SALMA, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.BASHEER, PAZHAMPILLITHAZHAM HOUSE, THOKKUPARA KARA, KUNICHITHANNY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: 1. M/S.VIYYATT POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, SP 20/641, VIYYATT KAUSTHUBHAM KARIYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 581. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.DAMODARAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, R/AT VIYYATT KAUSTHUBHAM, KARIYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- R.P.No.59 of 2009 in W.P.(C)No.32805 of 2008 -------------------------- ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. 2. W.P.(C)No.32805/08 was being disposed of by me giving dictation in open court, wherein, I have observed the fact that counsel for the respondent submitted that they have no objection and that the construction of the tunnel may be proceeded with after the District Collector giving an undertaking in the trial court to the effect that the land required for the project through private property will be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and compensation will be paid for the land so acquired. To appreciate the context in which it was so observed, it would be worthwhile to read the entire judgment and quoting a portion from the said judgment may not suffice in the situation. After having made such a submission before this Court and this Court observing it in the judgment dictated in open court, now another counsel from RP 59/09 2 the same office coming forward and submitting that no such submission was made does not stand to reason and is not in consonance with the propriety, integrity and dignity of a responsible Lawyer. The contention that this Court sitting in judgment, exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not entitled to pass such a judgment while the findings of the courts below had not been reversed is unsound when the judgment has been passed on consent, though, it is true that even without consent, judgment would have been passed and that would be evident from the tenor of the judgment dictated. Review is not a substitute for an appeal and if at all the review petitioners are aggrieved, it is up to them to challenge the order before appropriate forum. The review petition is not maintainable having been brought on false averments. The review petition is dismissed. 22nd January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv