IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 726 of 2008(M) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12933/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/FIRST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- KOSHY, ENJAKATTU HOUSE, PUTHUPALLY P.O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 011. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- 1. PARUKUTTY, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL, NARAKATHODU, PUTHUPALLY. 2. P.A.VIJAYAN, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL, NARAKATHODU, PUTHUPALLY. 3. P.A.RAMACHANDRAN, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL, NARAKATHODU, PUTHUPALLY. 4. P.A.VISWANATHAN, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL, NARAKATHODU, PUTHUPALLY. 5. P.A.REGHU, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL, NARAKATHODU, PUTHUPALLY. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY R1 TO 5 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN, ADV. R6 BY ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P. No. 726 OF 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 12933 OF 2008 M ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 O R D E R By the judgment under review, this Court, taking note of the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that having regard to the subsequent development in the form of consent of the landlord the writ petition can be closed, closed the writ petition. In the writ petition, there is an interim order as per which it is ordered that if the petitioners in the writ petition apply for connection in their individual names, that shall be considered and if the first respondent has not filed any consent letter, supply will be extended by acting on indemnity bond and other requirements which may be called for from the petitioners in accordance with law. That will be done within two weeks of the receipt of the application. The petitioners had approached this Court seeking direction to provide electricity connection without the consent letter and to RP.726/08 : 2 : declare that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to deny/withhold electricity connection. 2. The complaint in the review petition is that the review petitioner namely, the landlord, has complied with the interim order passed by this Court and accordingly connection was given. It is further complained that all the other occupants except respondents 1 to 5 have executed agreements with the landlord and paid an advance of Rs.1 lakh each and also monthly rent of Rs.1,200/-. This fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. 3. I heard learned counsel for the review petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondents. There is no dispute that the petitioner in the review petition gave consent. After consent was given and consequently electric connection was given, I do not see how the review petitioner can object the closing of the writ petition on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition that the writ petition may RP.726/08 : 3 : be closed having regard to the subsequent development in the form of consent given by the landlord. As far as the question of execution amount and payment of rent is concerned, I feel that these are all matters which this Court need not consider and I express no view on the same. There is no merit in the review petition and it is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the review petitioner to agitate his rights in any other forum. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE