IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 967 of 2010(J) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35533/2009 Dated 01/10/2010 .................... PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- V.CHANDRAKANTH, PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RAMBIA BEEGUM.T.K SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.M.KABANI DINESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R3 & R4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.B.NO.1727, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, P.B.NO.1727, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. 3. ADDNL.R3 SMT.P.G.USHA DEVI, SENIOR ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 4. ADDNL.R4 SHRI.A.RAJENDRA PANICKER, GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION), NOW HOLDING THE ADDNL.CHAGE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR (IN-CHARGE), KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, P.B.NO.1727, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- R.P. NO.967 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C).NO. 35533 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The review petitioner is the writ petitioner. As per judgment dated 1.10.2010, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the review petitioner against Exts.P6 and P7 holding that Exts.P6 and P7 call for no judicial review. In fact, the petitioner has approached this Court raising grievances against the order of transfer. After considering the rival contentions on merits, this Court found that the order of transfer is not liable to be interfered with. 2. Now, the petitioner has produced Annexures A2 and A3 along with the review petition and seeking review of the said judgment dated 1.10.2010. Having gone through the said documents and also the contentions raised in this review petition, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed bring out the error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with Annexure- A1 judgment under the review jurisdiction. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in issuing any further directions based on the contentions raised in this R.P. NO.967/2010 2 in W.P.(C).NO. 35533/2009 review jurisdiction. The grievances and the prayers raised in this review petition fall beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc R.P. NO.967/2010 3 in W.P.(C).NO. 35533/2009 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010