IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 818 of 2009 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.9466/2009 Dated 02/04/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------------------------------- SURYA PETROLEUM (P) LTD., P.B.ROAD, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SHRI P.K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.NO.818 OF 2009 IN W.P.C. NO. 9466 OF 2009 C -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th August, 2009 ORDER By the Judgment under Review, taking note of the Judgment of this Court in Sainalabdeen v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2006 (1) KLT 529), this Court had directed the Electricity Board to place the matter relating to under which category, the petitioner's LPG Bottling Unit falls, before the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission within two weeks from the date of the Judgment. The Commission was directed to take a decision in the matter. 2. In this case, the Review Petition is filed producing Annexure II Order of the Commission. According to the review petitioner, the Commission has already taken a decision in the matter, by holding that LPG Bottling Units will come under Category VII A. Annexure II order was not communicated to the standing counsel and accordingly it was not brought to the RP.NO.818/09 IN WPC.9466/09 C 2 notice of this Court. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner also. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would point out that there is no basis for any review, as the direction was to the Board to place the matter before the Commission and to the Commission to take a decision. He points out that if an order is passed against the writ petitioner, he can challenge the said order of the Commission. I find force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Then, the learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that in such an event, the Court may grant time for the review petitioners to comply with the Judgment. Accordingly, while rejecting the Review Petition, I grant six weeks' time from today for the review petitioners to comply with the Judgment. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge