IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 RP.No. 1089 of 2009(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25073/2009 Dated 28/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC 25073/09 ------------------------------------------------ DEAN, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FISHERIES, PANANGAD P.O., REP. BY DR.C.MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O. LATE CHELLAPPAN NAIR, AGED 54. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC 25073/09 ------------------------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, MARADU. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TRIPUNITHURA. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.NANDAKUMAR, SC FOR R5 MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.1089 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No.25073 of 2009 (D) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the respondent Board. 2. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 28/08/2009 relegating the petitioner to seek appellate remedies as provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Review of the judgment is sought for on the ground that the appellate authority has not been constituted in the manner as mandated in the Act and the Rules. It is also pointed out that on this very ground, several writ petitions have already been admitted and are pending before this Court. 3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not disputed by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board. Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the judgment is RP No.1089/2009 -2- vitiated for error apparently on the face of it. Therefore, the review petition is allowed and the judgment is recalled. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg