IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 995 of 2010(B) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.8412/2003 Dated 12/10/2006 .................. REVIEW PETITIONER / ADDL. 7TH RESPONDENT : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SURENDRAN A.K., SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA) RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.MURALIDHARAN, S/O.BHASKARA MENON, A-9 BHASKARA,SANTHI COLONY, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, PALAKKAD – 1. 6. SRI.BALAKRISHNA KURUP, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL CELL, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOZHIKODE-1. 7. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN-110016. R2 TO R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD R7 BY ADV. SRI. M.V.S. NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, CBI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Review Petition No.995 OF 2010 in O.P.No.8412 of 2003 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010. O R D E R Petition is filed to review judgment in O.P.8412 of 2003 dated 12.10.2006, contending that though petitioner instructed his counsel to file a petition to review the judgment, the case bundle was misplaced and was traced out only recently and hence the delay was caused and it is contended that there is an apparent error in the judgment warranting its review. The contention of the petitioner is that under Article 226 of Constitution of India a Judicial Order cannot be set aside and the petitioner in his counter affidavit to the writ petition specifically raised such a contention and still without considering the same, by the impugned judgment, the judicial order passed by Special Judge (Vigilance) was quashed. The impugned judgment shows that Ext.P3 order passed by Special Judge (Vigilance) was found to be illegal. Therefore exercising the power of superintendence under Article 227 Constitution of India, the said order was quashed. Hence there is Review Petition No.995 OF 2010 in O.P.No.8412 of 2003 2 no error apparent on the face of the record as contended. The petition is therefore dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE mns