IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/17TH ASWINA, 1936 RP.No. 531 of 2014 () IN WP(C).3128/2014 --------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3128/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-03-2014 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC.:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030. BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC.:
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENSON.K.A KIZHAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, KANNAMALY, KANNAMALY P.O. R BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
das R.P. No. 531 of 2014 in W.P.(C). No. 3128 of 2014 ================================= Dated this the 9th day of October, 2014 ORDER This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 19.03.2014. It is inter-alia contended that the bills could be paid only on the basis of State-wise Seniority List fixed as per order dated 11.04.2001 and 18.10.2001 in CC (C) No. 803/2000 and connected cases. Apparently these matters were not brought to the notice of this Court during the relevant time. That apart, a list prepared as early as in 2001 can have no bearing as matters stand now. No further materials has been produced before this Court to contend that the right of the contractor to release the amount will arise only on the basis of priority.
Hence, there being no grounds to review the judgment, review petition is dismissed.
das Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE C.M.A No. 207 of 2014 in R.P. No. 531 of 2014 in W.P.(C). No. 3128 of 2014 ================================= Dated this the 9th day of October, 2014 ORDER Adv.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha appears for the respondent. There is a delay of 80 days in filing the above review petition.
Having gone through the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the review petition, it is clear that sufficient cause is shown. Hence, the delay stands condoned.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE das