Dismissed

Susheela Narayanan v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC3 Feb 2015RP/76/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by Susheela Narayanan challenging the dismissal of her underlying writ petition. The court held there was no 'error apparent on the face of the record' and relied on Apex Court precedents that review cannot substitute for an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition R.P. No. 76 of 2015 is dismissed as there is no error apparent on the face of record.

Susheela Narayanan Vs the Kerala State Electricity… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/14TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

RP.No. 76 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.21257/2014 DATED 24/11/2014.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

SUSHEELA NARAYANAN, W/O.P. NARAYANAN, AGED 58 YEARS, ''KRISHNA KRIPA'', NORTH MANAKKAD, P.O. KARIVELLUR, KANNUR- 670 521.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR- 670 631.

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VELLUR, KANNUR -670 307.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SECTION, KARIVELLUR, KANNUR- 670 521.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC.

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

RP.No. 76 of 2015

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/11/2014 IN WP(C).NO.21257/2014.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

========================

¶28

R.P. No. 76 of 2015 in W.P.(C). No. 21257 of 2014 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2015

¶29

ORDER

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

R.P. No.76 of 2015

¶34

-2-

¶35

1995 SC 455), holding that the scope and power of review shall not be mis-construed as a substitute for appeal.

¶36

The review petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶37

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶38

kp/-

Susheela Narayanan v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheela Narayanan v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.G.Memorial Labour Contract Society Ltd. Vs Shri.Suseel Chandran

T.K.Gopi Vs State Bank of Travancore

Navas Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Chandragiri Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

Sasidharan T.P. Vs the Village Officer, Edayur North Post

Rose Thomas Vs State of Kerala