IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 364 of 2001(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.10168/1990 Dated 07/04/1993 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN OP: ------------------------------------------------------------------ M/S. K.P. ALI & BROS, GROCERY DEALER, MAIN ROAD, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, K.P. HASSAN. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN, SRI.T.S.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.), SPECIAL CIRCLE, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = C.M.P. 37670/2001 & R.P. No. 364/2001 IN O.P. 10168/1990 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2010. O R D E R A writ petition, filed by the petitioner two decades ago, was dismissed by this Court as per judgment dated 7.4.1993. The above judgment has been sought to be reviewed by filing R.P. 364/2001, which is accompanied by C.M.P. 37670/2001 - a petition to condone the delay of 2978 days caused in filing the review petition. The reason for condoning the delay as stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support thereof is as follows: "The delay in filing this Review Petition is not willful or intentional but due to reasons beyond control. The petitioner's case is directly covered by the earlier judgment in O.P. No. 9368/89 by disposing the O.P. along with another batch of cases unconnected with the petitioner's O.P., great hardship is caused. It is just and necessary that the judgment in so far as it is related to the O.P. filed by the petitioner is reviewed and the earlier decision in .O.P. No. 9368/89 dated 26.11.1990 is followed and justice rendered." 2. Absolutely, no explanation has been offered on the part of the R.P. 364/2001 2 review petitioner as to what prevented him from approaching this Court in time or at least within a reasonable time, after the pronouncement of the final verdict. There is no case for the petitioner that he was laid up or was elsewhere or otherwise prevented from approaching this Court for about eight years after passing the judgment. Absolutely no satisfactory explanation is there, much less any reason but for the vague averment in a single sentence as contained in Para 3 of the affidavit. This Court finds no ground to entertain the petition to condone the delay in filing the review petition. It is accordingly dismissed and as a natural consequence, the review petition as well. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/- R.P. 364/2001 3 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = C.M.P. 37670/2001 & R.P. No. 364/2001 IN O.P. 10168/1990 = = = = = = = = = = = DATED: 23RD JULY, 2010. O R D E R