IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 839 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13017/2006 Dated 14/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------- K.THOMAS VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, ENFIT RUBBER FACTORY, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR POST, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1&4 BY G.P. SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU.T.K. R2,3&5 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.839 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.13017 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009. ORDER Review Petition is filed on the ground that the facts stated in the judgment about year of allotment of the industrial sheds to the petitioner as 1992 is incorrect and petitioner was in fact allotted the sheds in 1968. According to counsel for the review petitioner, the condition for allotment made in 1968 are different and so much so, judgment requires reconsideration. I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment in review because pursuant to direction issued by this court, petitioner was given option to purchase the property on an outright purchase basis and the contest in the W.P.(C) was on the value fixed in the revised proceedings. Consequently Review Petition is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms