IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 689 of 2010(W) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18786/2010 Dated 24/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (EAST.B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMNET SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR,SPL.GP FOR FINANCE (SR) RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.I.HASHIM, SENIOR FINANCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, SENNIOR FINANCE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, ALONG WITH RP NO. 703 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ RP Nos 689 & 703 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 18786 OF 2010 (W) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010 O R D E R Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the review petitioners in RP Nos.689/10 and 703/10 respectively. 2. The ground urged in RP No.689/10 is that the Minister for Water Resources wanted Ext.P4 order to be cancelled and therefore, it was cancelled as per Ext.P5. A perusal of the review petition does not show any basis for such a demand of the Minister. Therefore, even if it was on the orders of the Minister that Ext.P4 order was cancelled, such cancellation could not have been a valid one. Therefore, this reason stated by the learned Government Pleader is no reason to review the judgment. 3. In so far as RP No.703/10 is concerned, first of all despite service of notice, the review petitioner did not appear before this Court when the writ petition was heard and the justification for his non appearance is that he believed that the 1st respondent in the writ petition will defend the order. Even RP Nos. 689 & 703/10 :2 : otherwise, on merits also, no grounds have been made out for review of the judgment. Review petitions are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp