IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2007 / 27TH ASHADHA 1929 RP.No. 419 of 2007 IN THE JUDGEMENT IN CONT.CASE (C) N0..885/2004 Dated 17/09/2004 REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER: K.P.JOY, S/O.K.P.POULO, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, KOORANKALLOOKKARAN HOUSE, PEECHANIKKAD, PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: 1. V.S.SENTHIL, WORKING AS THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BABU, WORKING AS THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ROY VELLANIKKARAN, S/O.JOHN VELLANIKKARAN WORKING AS THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(ROADS & BRIDGES) CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 4. ABDULLAKUTTY, WORKING AS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 18/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J. ---------------------------------------------------- Review Petition No.419 of 2007 in Cont. Case (C) No. 885 of 2004 and C.M.Appl. NO. 182 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th July, 2007 O R D E R H.L.DATTU, C.J. This Review Petition is filed for reviewing the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Case (C) No.885 of 2004, dated 17th September, 2004. 2. In filing the Review Petition, there is a delay of 893 days. To condone the delay, an application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. We have carefully perused the explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The explanation offered, in our view, is wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore, the delay in filing the Review Petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition is rejected. 4. Consequent to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition, the Review Petition also stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/