IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 455 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1839/2010 Dated 22/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN W.A. --------------------------------------- SHYAMALA SATYAPALAN, W/O.K.N.SATHYAPALAN, AGED 58, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PROJECT II, PUBLIC BUILDING, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MUSEUM P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 013. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PROJECT CIRCLE, PIRAVOM, PIN - 686 664. MR.GEORGE MECHERIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.P.No.455 of 2011 in W.A.No.1839 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The review petitioner is the widow of a contractor, who after undertaking to execute work for the Irrigation Department died without doing any serious work towards execution of the project. After the death of her husband, the review petitioner requested the Government to allot the work to her with undertaking to complete the work in time. The Government obliged by reawarding the contract to the review petitioner merely because she happened to be the widow of the contractor. The project as originally conceived should have been completed by 2001 itself. However, on account of the death of the contractor and reawarding of the contract to the widow, who is the review petitioner herein, time for completion of the work got extended till 2002. The review petitioner instead of completing the work kept on applying for R.P.No.455/2011 in W.A.No.1839/2010 -2- extension of time and the respondents liberally granted it up to 2008. However, it was noticed that inspite of several extension of time availed by the review petitioner, the work was neither completed nor reached any serious stage of construction. Therefore, vide Ext.P34 order dated 12/08/2010 the Government cancelled the contract. It was against the cancellation of the contract the review petitioner filed the Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge after verifying the records found no merit in the contentions raised by the review petitioner against cancellation of the contract reawarded to her only on compassionate grounds. 2. It is against this judgment, the review petitioner filed appeal before us. 3. During hearing of the appeal filed by the review petitioner, she repeated routine ground attributing the delay in execution of work to the respondents such as failure to supply raw materials by the respondents in time, failure to shift electric line from the area where work is to be executed, Munipality’s failure to grant permission to cut the road etc. R.P.No.455/2011 in W.A.No.1839/2010 -3- However, we noticed that the appellant's husband himself was a defaulter in as much as he did not do any serious work until his death, which was after one year of award of the contract, and the appellant behaved in the same manner her late husband did i.e. taking no serious step for execution of the work. We, therefore upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding cancellation of the contract reawarded to the review petitioner on the death of her husband. This review petition is filed with a request to expunge the findings and observations in the judgment of the learned Single Judge confirmed by us in the Writ Appeal and with a request to give right to the review petitioner to file civil suit in the very same matter. We are amazed at the attitude of the review petitioner, who does not want the litigations to achieve finality even after Division Bench of this Court decided the case on merit against her. If the appellant had any grievance against the judgment of this Court, recourse open to her was to challenge our judgment before the Honourable Supreme Court. It is not known whether she made an attempt and R.P.No.455/2011 in W.A.No.1839/2010 -4- failed in the same. In any case, we do not find any justification to allow the review petitioner to re-open another litigation account with civil court. We have already deprecated the attitude of the litigants, who after contesting case on merit in writ proceedings and on failure file a review petition seeking permission to go to the civil court or other forum. Article 226 confers discretionary jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain grievances raised by the parties. The High Court normally does not entertain any matter where parties have effective alternate remedy to redress their grievances. However, when High Court entertains challenge against the proceedings and proceeds to decide the matter on merit, the parties have no escape but to accept the judgment and the only recourse open to them is to challenge the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court. If judgments rendered on merit are reviewed and parties are permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition already decided on merit and allow them to go to civil court then what the High Court does unwittingly will be permitting it's judgment on merit to be R.P.No.455/2011 in W.A.No.1839/2010 -5- overlooked and possibly reversed by subordinate civil courts. Unless judgments are reviewed on merit and findings are reversed by the High Court itself, the subordinate court should not be allowed to reach conclusions contrary to what was found by the High Court. What the review petitioner seeks before us is a permission to achieve the above objective i.e. to get a decision from the civil court that the cancellation of contract is illegal and the work should be restored to her which is directly contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench rendered on merit. We therefore decline to grant the relief prayed for i.e. to permit the petitioner to withdraw the Writ Appeal and Writ Petition for the review petitioner to take recourse before civil court. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg