IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 968 of 2007 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1837/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS: REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KUTHIATHODE. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT : PETITIONER ------------------------- NIRMALA METAL INDUSTRIES, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, AROOR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ANWAR SAIT. ADV. SRI.K.K.M.SHERIFF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.424 of 2006 & R.P.NO.968 OF 2007 in W.A.No.1837 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 ORDER Ramkumar,J. C.M.Appl.No.424/2006 is to condone the delay of 320 days in filing a review petition. 2. The judgment sought to be reviewed was passed on 7/7/2006; but this petition was filed on 9/8/07. The reasons put forward in support of the delay petition are as follows: A copy of the judgment was applied for on 10/7/06 and was received on 26/10/06. Immediately thereafter, the copy of the judgment was forwarded to the Office of the K.S.E.B. and the Board had examined the matter. It was realised that the judgment has serious implications to the functioning of the officers of the Board and that it suffered from infirmities R.P.NO.968 OF 2007 -: 2 :- pleaded in the review petition. It was therefore decided to submit a review petition and the Senior Standing Counsel was instructed through a communication dated 4/6/07. The petition is being filed thereafter. 3. There is absolutely no satisfactory explanation for the long delay from 26/10/06 to 9/8/07. The petitioner has been grossly negligent in not filing the review petition in time. 4. On merits also, we are not satisfied that the review petition should be entertained. The concurrent finding is that the meter was defective and therefore invocation of Sec.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act was fully justified. On that score also the judgment sought to be reviewed does not call for interference. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. 5. These petitions are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/ V. RAMKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.NO.968 OF 2007 -: 3 :-