IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 676 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11492/2008 Dated 04/04/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.BINANI ZINC LTD,BINANIPURAM-683502 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION, MR.A.A.MOHAMED NAWAZ. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM PALACE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM PALACE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN, S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.676 OF 2009 IN W.P(C).No.11492 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity against a decision of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Tribunal passed an interlocutory order rejecting the application for interim relief but deferring the expression of reasons for that order. This Court, by Annexure B judgment which is sought to be reviewed, refused to interfere with that order on merits, but categorically expressed that the adjudication leading to Annexure B does not, in any manner, impair the final adjudication of the appeal then pending before the appellate tribunal. I say this because even in Annexure B, it was stated that “having regard to the fact that the appeal is still pending consideration before the tribunal, I venture not to state much on the merits”. RP.676/09 Page numbers The appellate tribunal has now issued Annexure C essentially stating the reasons for its decision to refuse the interim order of stay. Under such circumstances, while clarifying that Annexure B judgment does not affect the petitioner's right to work out remedies under Annexure C, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.21/10.