Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 16008 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
RP NO. 1285 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.27817 OF 2023 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 SAJITHABAI
AGED 51 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH SECTION,
VATANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680614
2 ABDUL SATHAR. U,
AGED 46 YEARS,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PH HEAD WORKS SECTION, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101
3 JONA.T.J
AGED 42 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
WATER WORKS SECTION NO.2, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
4 SHAMNADH.A.
AGED 50 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
HEADQUARTERS SECTION, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2
R.P.No.1285 of 2023
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 ANOOP.V.S
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, (PEN - G44684),
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS SECTION,
VANDITHADAM, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT KADUKKAMOODE HOUSE, KANIYARAMCODE,
PANACODE.P.O. NEDUMANGADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695542
4 BINDU.S
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PIV-4 HEAD OFFICE, JALA BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, RESIDING AT FLAT 5B,
HEERA GRACE, KOWADIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
BY ADV P.M.JOHNY
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P M JOHNY, SC FOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
SRI ELVIN PETER FOR PARTY RESP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
R.P.No.1285 of 2023
ORDER
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that
the appeal challenging the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)
No. 27817 of 2023 stands dismissed.
2. Furthermore, even on merits, I am satisfied that the
petitioner has not been able to substantiate that there has been an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error that is not self-evident and
has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the record justifying this Court to exercise
its power of review. It is by now settled that a review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected, but only for a patent error.
Having considered the matter in all its perspectives, I find no
reason to entertain this Review Petition.
This Review Petition is dismissed.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
PS/7/6/24
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(P) NO.
1/2023/WRD DATED 27/1/2023
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!