IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 RP.No. 336 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28522/2009 Dated 18/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,TRANSMISSION CIRCLE,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- M.T.ABDUL NAZAR,PWD CONTRACTOR, BEVINJA.P.O,THEKKIL FERRY,CHENGALA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SHRI A.K. ABDUL AZEEZ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.336/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 28522/2009 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. O R D E R This review petition is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board seeking to review a direction issued by this Court to pay the admitted amount to the writ petitioner. 2. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court has directed the petitioner in the writ petition to approach the civil court and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. It was also observed that in the meanwhile, it will be open to the respondents to pay the admitted amount within a period of two months from the date of judgment. 3. According to the review petitioner, there is a positive direction by this Court. I am afraid, the said contention cannot be accepted. This Court has only made it clear that it will be open to the review petitioner to pay the admitted amount and there is no direction compelling the Board to pay it. The time limit even though fixed, it only implied that if the Board is inclined to pay it, the payment need not be delayed unnecessarily. Various other contentions have been raised in the review petition which were not part of the counter affidavit filed by the Board in the writ petition. It is RP 336/2010 2 pointed out that various details regarding the balance to be recovered from the writ petitioner, have also been stated. I am not going into the details of those pleas, since it is not covered by the pleadings in the writ petition. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this review petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/