IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 266 of 2005(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16249/2004 Dated 17/08/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/REVIEW PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------- 1. K.V.THOMAS, KUNNATH HOUSE, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, PLASSANAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. VINOD P.S., POOVATHUNKAL HOUSE, DO. DO. 3. VALSAMMA GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE NEENDUKUNNEL, DO. DO. 4. ANNAKUTTY MATHAI, W/O.MATHAI, KAYYANIYIL HOUSE, DO. DO. 5. ELSAMMA, W/O.JOY, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, DO. DO. 6. P.S.AMMUKUTTY AMMA, W/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED 75 YEARS, PERRUKKUNNEL HOUSE, DO. DO. 7. M.D.JOSEPH, MARIKUDIYIL HOUSE, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, POOVANTHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, ERATTUPETTA. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1,3 & 4 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... C.M. Appl. No.2448 of 2005 and R.P. No.266 of 2005 in W.P.(C) No.16249 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. ORDER This is a petition to condone the delay of 156 days in filing the Review Petition against the judgment rendered by me on 17.8.2004. Even though delay condonation petition and Review Petition were filed way back in 2005, the petitioners have not chosen to move both the matters for orders which obviously means that there is no urgency in the matter. Further, on going through the judgment sought to be reviewed, I find that the matter pertains to drawal of an electric line for a considerable long distance and several judgments are rendered by this court in the same matter. Further, even a Commissioner was appointed by this court to report on the complaints raised by various land owners over whose property the line was proposed. The line was drawn by the Electricity Board and is remaining there for several years. The only matter considered by me in the judgment is the objection about the line passing through the corner of play ground of a School. After noticing that the line maintains sufficient clearance from the ground level for the 2 children to play safely in the school, W.P.(C) was rejected. It is against this judgment the Review is filed. 2. Since the matter pertains to drawal of electric line, I do not think petitioners' objection should be reconsidered in a Review Petition because always a shifting application is maintainable even in respect of a line already drawn and maintained. If the change in circumstances justify atleast shifting of the line within limited area, the Electricity Board should naturally consider the same. So much so, at this distance of time i.e. after several years of drawing the line and six years after disposal of the W.P.(C), I do not think it would be proper on the part of this court to pass orders on shifting the line in Review Petition. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Review Petition. Delay condonation petition and Review petition are accordingly dismissed leaving freedom to the petitioner to file application for shifting the line within the limited areas by making alternate suggestion for the K.S.E.B. to allow, failing which for the District Magistrate to consider. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms