ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.362/2013, which was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 13.2.2014. The petitioner himself says that, challenging the judgment in Writ Appeal, S.L.P.No.12549/2014 was filed before the Apex Court and that the same was dismissed by order dated 30.6.2014.
2. To contend that the judgment of this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of it, the petitioner relied on Regulation 95 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 framed by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of its power under Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner states that clause 95(4)(b) of the Code authorises the shifting of line to outside the property and therefore conclusion to the contrary contained in the judgment in the Writ Appeal is erroneous.
3. We have considered the submissions made.
4. The judgment was rendered by this Court referring to Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, which provides for shifting of the line within the property and not outside the property. Even now, shifting is governed by the provisions of the Telegraph Act and if that be so, the R.P.NO.733/14 -2-
Supply Code, which is only the piece of subordinate legislation, cannot override the provisions of plenary law. If that be the legal position, even if it is accepted that clause 95(4)(b) enables shifting of the line to a place, outside the property, that cannot be acted upon. A reading of clause 95 also gives us the impression that the latter portion of clause 95(4)(b) goes beyond the terms of clause 95(1) of the Code.
5. For all these reasons, we do not think that the judgment rendered by this Court relying on Section 17 of the Telegraph Act suffer from any error, as sought to be made out, justifying its review.
The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE