IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 273 of 2008(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8862/2004 Dated 22/06/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.Y.I.P. DIVISION NO.II, KANNOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- MRS. MARY MATHEW, W/O. LATE K.O.MATHEW, KANIYAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.273/2008 in W.P.(C) No.8862/2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 20th July, 2009. O R D E R C.M.Appln.131/2008 : This is a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The review petition is at the instance of the State. The writ petitioner is the wife of a contractor who had executed certain works. She approached this court praying for a direction to disburse the amounts in respect of the works already executed by her late husband. This court disposed of the writ petition directing the review petitioner to disburse the amounts in respect of the works executed by the late husband of the petitioner, in case there was no vigilance case against him. In the review petition, it is stated that a vigilance enquiry is pending in the matter and it was found that an amount of Rs.7,74,074/- was due to the Government from the late husband of the petitioner. Naturally, the Government is not bound by the direction in the judgment since the vigilance enquiry was pending. Vigilance enquiry is a pre-condition for registering a vigilance case. Therefore, on the technical interpretation that the expression used in the judgment is only 'vigilance case', the Government R.P.273/2008 2 cannot be compelled to make the payment. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to condone the delay in filing the review petition and consider the review petition on merits. Hence the petition for delay condonation is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the delay petition, the review petition is also dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.273/2008 in W.P.(C) No.8862/2004 ---------------------------------------------- O R D E R Dated 20th July, 2009.