JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner seeks that the 2nd respondent, who is the statutory Arbitrator, be directed to take up Ext.P3 application preferred by him for Review of Ext.P2 Award issued by the said Authority, along with Ext.P4 application to condone delay in filing the said petition. 2. Sri. Franklin Arackal A.R. learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P2 Award is an ex parte one, but conceded that its contents would show that it is issued on merits, after hearing both sides. He explained that it is, therefore, that his client has preferred Ext.P3 application for Review, since the factual record in the Award is incorrect. 3. Smt. C.S. Sheeja learned Senior Government Pleader, however, submitted that there is no power of Review for the Arbitrator and that hence, Ext.P3 is not maintainable. She explained that the proper remedy for the petitioner -particularly when Ext.P2 Award records it as one that has been issued on merits -should have been to file an appeal against it before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. She thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 4. Sri. S. Saju learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, adopted the afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader. 5. I have no doubt that Ext.P3 is not maintainable before the 2nd respondent because, power of Review is not inherent, but only statutorily vested. In the absence of any legal provision being asserted by the petitioner in seeking Review of Ext.P2, especially when it is virtually conceded that the said order decides the matter on merits, I fail to understand how the petitioner can maintain this Writ Petition. 6. In the afore circumstances, I close this Writ Petition, without acceding to any of the prayers made therein; however, with liberty being reserved to the petitioner to invoke other remedies, subject to the rigour of limitation, for which purpose, all rival contentions are left open.