Kerala High Court
Kerala Water Authority vs G.Suresh on 6 January, 2026
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
RP NO. 1182 OF 2025 2026:KER:665
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
RP NO. 1182 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.29038 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY
DIVISION, ATTINGAL., PIN - 695101
3 THE FINANCE MANAGER & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695010
BY ADV SRI.GEORGIE JOHNY
RESPONDENTS:
1 G.SURESH
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.P.GOPINANTHAN, SUNITHABHAVAN, AVANVANCHERI
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695103
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695001
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 1182 OF 2025 2026:KER:665
2
ORDER
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2026 This petition is filed seeking condonation of the delay of 363 days in filing the review petition.
2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority submits that the review that necessitated since specific clause in the agreement could not be pointed out at the time when the writ petition was considered.
3. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits after the judgment was rendered, the Water Authority had preferred an application seeking extension of time and having failed to disburse the amount as directed in the judgement even after such extension, the RP NO. 1182 OF 2025 2026:KER:665 3 petitioner preferred a Contempt of Court Case. Thereafter alone, the review petition is filed which indicates that there are no bonafides in the challenge made.
4. Insofar as the judgment was rendered back on 05.09.2024, the Water Authority having submitted an application for extension of time for payment thereafter, and this review petition having been filed after the Contempt of Court Case filed by the petitioner came up for consideration, I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the review petitioner. Even otherwise, no sufficient reasons are made out for condoning the inordinate delay of 363 days.
The application for condonation of delay is hence dismissed.
RP NO. 1182 OF 2025 2026:KER:665 4 Consequently the review petition is also dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE ANB RP NO. 1182 OF 2025 2026:KER:665 5 APPENDIX OF RP NO. 1182 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING TENDER (NIT), WHICH IS A BINDING PART OF THE CONTRACT.