V.P Abdul Azeez vs Kerala Water Authority
2023 Latest Caselaw 1982 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
                    RP NO. 1299 OF 2022
          WP(C) 22882/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC

           V.P ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O
           PAREEDKUTTY,VADAPPILLY HOUSE, AMBATTUKAVU
           ALUVA, PIN - 683106
           BY ADVS.
           RANJITH VARGHESE
           RAHUL VARGHESE
           SANTHA VARGHESE


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC

    1      KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
           REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA
           BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695033
    2      THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CR)
           KERALA WATER AUTHORITY KOCHI, PIN - 682011
    3      THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
           KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. CIRCLE, KOCHI,
           PIN - 682011
    4      THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
           PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
           PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542
    5      GOSHREE ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GIDA),
           REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND
           SECRETARY,9TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK
           AVENUE, KOCHI ., PIN - 682011
           BY ADV Varghese K Paul
 RP.1299/2022
                                   2

OTHER PRESENT:

               SC: SRI P M JOHNY



      THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP.1299/2022
                                       3

                       MOHAMMED NIAS C.P, J.
                   ------------------------------------
             R.P.1299 of 2022 in W.P(C).22882 of 2015
            --------------------------------------------------
                      Dated : 3rd February, 2023

                                 ORDER

This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the judgment

dated 25.11.2022 stating that a mistake has crept in the

judgment on account of the mistake on the part of the

representing counsel, who made an erroneous submission that

the work was completed by the petitioner. The review petitioner

now states that the work has been completed by a third person.

In such circumstances, the judgment is reviewed to the said

extent of modifying paragraph No.3 as follows :

2. The petitioner submits that the subject work has been

completed in re-arrangement by a third person after the

termination of the contract with the petitioner.

The Review petition is hence allowed without prejudice to

the right of the petitioner to move the authorities in case there is

any subsisting grievance either about the settlement of accounts

or about the amounts payable.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE Mrcs RP.1299/2022

APPENDIX OF RP 1299/2022

ANNEXURES Annexure 1 AFFIDAVIT