IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP.No. 483 of 2010(C) 1. M.P.PAILY, MUNDAYIL HOUSE, ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, ... Respondent 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR For Petitioner :SRI.K.BABU THOMAS For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Dated :09/06/2010 O R D E R 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
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)