IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 130 of 2011(V) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P.(C).NO.5773/2010 DATED 07/02/2011] .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS IN W.P: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION AGENCY (JICA), (EARLIER KNOWN AS JBIC), PROJECT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, S.C, K.W.A. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE W.P: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. K.RAMAKRISHNA CONTRACTORS (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CMD K.RAMAKRISHNA, H.O: F.404, VEERU CASTLE, DURGANAGAR COLONY, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD-500 082, ANDRA PRADESH. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES (WS-B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. BINDU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.130/2011 IN W.P.(C) NO.5773/2010 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 O R D E R By order dated 7th February, 2011, this Court restrained the respondents in the writ petition from encashing the bank guarantee until the dues are determined and settled, on condition that the writ petitioner keeps bank guarantee alive. Further based on the submissions made, accepting the possibility of settlement of the dispute, the case was also ordered to be posted before Adalat. It is seeking review of this order, the review petition is filed. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioners, Adv. George Punthottam for the first respondent and the Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. Although, various contentions are raised regarding the correctness of the order directing not to encash the Bank Guarantee, as is evident by the order itself, such an order was passed based on the averments in paragraph 36 of the counter affidavit filed by the review petitioners. Therefore, there is no R.P.No.130/2011 :2 : error in the said order to be reviewed. 4. It is pointed out that the first prayer in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 Government Order. Petitioners also submit that having regard to the nature of the disputes between the parties, there is no possibility of a settlement of the matter. Posting a case in the Adalat is justified, only if there is possibility of settlement. From the submissions made, possibility of settlement can be ruled out. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by posting the case before the Adalat. In that view of the matter the direction in the oder dated 7.2.2011 posting the case before the Adalat is reviewed and recalled. Review Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/