IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 957 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17897/2008 Dated 04/08/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PARAPPANANGADI. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER IN WPC ---------------------------------------------------- K.K.SAIDALAVI, S/O.CHERIYA AHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT KOLOTHIYIL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL, ULLANAM P.O., PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SHRI HARISH R. MENON. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.NO.957 OF 2008 IN W.P.C. NO. 17897 OF 2008 E -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd September, 2008 ORDER I heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that a Statement had been filed in the matter and ultimately the matter came to be disposed of. It is stated that the petitioner in the Writ Petition is not a consumer and though it was stated in the Statement, it was not properly brought to the notice of this Court and that along with the payments in accordance with Regulation 41(5) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, the consumer has to file application for reconnection. The prayer in the Review Petition is to review the Judgment dated 4.8.2008 to the extent that the registered consumer shall file application for restoration of the connection along with the payment of required fees in RP.957/08 IN WPC.17897/08E 2 accordance with Regulation 45(5) of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. 2. There is no dispute that the omission to bring to the notice of the Court the facts, could be a ground to review. In the light of the averments in the Review Petition, I feel that the Review Petition should be allowed and it is accordingly allowed and the Judgment in the Writ Petition is recalled. Post the Writ Petition on 23.9.2008 for hearing. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge