IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 483 of 2010(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19670/2009 Dated 17/02/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- M.P.PAILY, MUNDAYIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERY P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, REVIPURAM ERANKUAM 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR. BY G.P. SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.483/2010 in W.P.(C) No.19670/2009 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT This review petition is filed by the writ petitioner on various grounds. It is pointed out that certain observations made in the judgment, were not necessary for the disposal of the case. What is objectionable, according to the petitioner, is that this Court in para 3 of the judgment, recorded that the department has initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner also. The other grievance is that in para 4, it is recorded that “if the petitioner has caused loss in respect of any other work, it is upto the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law.” 2. Evidently, these aspects have been stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed on 5.11.2009. What is mentioned in para 5 of the counter affidavit is that the department has initiated recovery proceedings against the persons who made such a huge loss to the department. Ext.R2(a) is the show cause notice, wherein it is mentioned that the department has decided to take appropriate penal action against the petitioner to make good the loss sustained to the Government. 3. I have only recorded the above statement of facts in the judgment. rp 483/2010 2 As apprehended by the review petitioner, it is not a direction to take revenue recovery proceedings. Therefore, there cannot be any grievance regarding that. The same yardstick will apply as far as the observations in para 4 of the judgment also. It is not a case where this Court directed that respondents can proceed against the petitioner to recoup the loss. What was mentioned only is that if the petitioner has caused any loss, the respondents can proceed against him in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, I do not find any apparent error in the judgment which calls for a review. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/