In this review petition, the petitioner challenged an order closing a writ petition without considering a claim for interest on payments already made. The court held that the failure to address the interest claim was a conscious decision refusing it.
The review petition was dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to interact with the matter via review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932
RP.No. 292 of 2004(E) -----------------------------[THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.37425/2003 DATED 12/03/2004] ....................
PETITIONER:
-------------------
BABU JOSE, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETIRED), OLIYAPURAM HOUSE, ANGADI, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN.
RESPONDENT: ----------------------
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, S.C, K.S.E.B.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
prv.
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.292 of 2004 in W.P.(C)No. 37425 of 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010
O R D E R
The petitioner in the writ petition seeks review of the
following judgment dated 12.03.2004 in the writ petition:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders have been complied with and the D.C.R.G payable to the petitioner had been paid. As such, nothing more remains to be decided by this petition.
The writ petition is accordingly closed.”
The petitioner's contention is that although DCRG has been paid to the petitioner this court has not considered the claim of the petitioner for interest. When the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition without adverting to the other prayers, I am of opinion that it was a conscious decision refusing interest. That being so, the proper course available to the petitioner was to file an appeal against the judgment. Therefore I am not inclined to entertain this review petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE
shg/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable when the petitioner claims the original judgment refused interest despite payment of principal.
Whether the original order which closed the writ petition without considering the prayer for interest amounts to a refusal of interest requiring remedy by appeal rather than review.
BABU JOSE
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
S. SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
