IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 767 of 2005(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.2867/2002 Dated 11/07/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN W.A.: -------------------------------------------------------------------- V.RAJENDRAN, S/O.C.K.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, AGED 55 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT (RETD), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PERUMBAVOOR AND RESIDING AT "SREE VILAS", ELANGAVAM, VARAPETTY-P.O., (VIA), KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN W.A.: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1,2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- R.P.No.767 of 2005 in W.A.No.2867 of 2002 ------------------------------------- Dated 27th November, 2008 ORDER Koshy,J . It is contended by the review petitioner that the judgment under review is illegal and also contended that the Division Bench went wrong regarding the interpretaion of re-fixation and fixing the date of option. The operative portion of the judgment is only states that if there is anomaly, that should be corrected. If the review petitioner is entitled to re-option, the judgment under review will not prevent him from filing re-option. In any event, if the judgment is erroneous, it is for the appellant to file appeal. A review petition cannot be equated to an appeal or a petition for rehearing the matter. Hence, this review petition is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks