Susheela Narayanan v. The Kerala State Electricity Board
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/14TH MAGHA, 1936 RP.No. 76 of 2015 () ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.21257/2014 DATED 24/11/2014. .....
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------------------------- SUSHEELA NARAYANAN, W/O.P. NARAYANAN, AGED 58 YEARS, ''KRISHNA KRIPA'', NORTH MANAKKAD, P.O. KARIVELLUR, KANNUR- 670 521.
BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR- 670 631.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VELLUR, KANNUR -670 307.
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SECTION, KARIVELLUR, KANNUR- 670 521.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
RP.No. 76 of 2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/11/2014 IN WP(C).NO.21257/2014.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
======================== R.P. No. 76 of 2015 in W.P.(C). No. 21257 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3 rd day of February, 2015
ORDER
The main ground raised in the Review Petition is that, the writ petition came to be dismissed for want of reply affidavit and that, non filing of reply affidavit on time was due to some unforeseen circumstances.
2. After hearing the petitioner and also going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the dismissal of the writ petition was not for want of filing reply affidavit alone, but due to various facts and circumstances as pointed out from the part of the concerned respondent, which version as appearing in paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 of their counter affidavit has been extracted in paragraph '3' of the judgment.
3. This Court does not find any 'error apparent on the face of record' to call for interference, more so, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court on many an occasion including the one in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (AIR
R.P. No.76 of 2015 -21995 SC 455), holding that the scope and power of review shall not be mis-construed as a substitute for appeal. The review petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-