IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No. 193 of 2009(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25912/2006 Dated 23/07/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------- THE ADMINISTRATOR, JOSEGIRI HOSPITAL, THALASSERY, REP. BY THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATOR, SR. ROSILY. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE GOVT. OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (SPL.CELL) DEPT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY TALUK, THALASSERY TALUK, THALASSERY. BY G.P.SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.193 OF 2009-I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Basheer, J: This review petition is at the instance of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.25912/2006. 2. The above writ petition happened to be considered by the Division Bench on a reference made by a learned Single Judge, who doubted the correctness of an earlier decision of this Court in Sree Gokulam Educational and Medical Trust v. Tahsildar (2006 (4) KLT 108). 3. The Division Bench, after an elaborate consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner, held that the 3rd and 4th floors of the building in which the petitioner is running a Nursing School cannot be exempted from payment of tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. 4. It is contended by the review petitioner that the Division Bench had failed to take note of the vital issue as to whether or not the hostel facility to be provided to the nursing students in the institution, does form an integral part of the course of study, as envisaged in the syllabus and regulations prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council. It is further contended by the petitioner that an omission to consider a vital issue in the lis can always be a ground for review. 2 R.P.No.193/2009 4. It may be noticed that this review petition is filed by the petitioner through another counsel, who had not appeared before the Division Bench. The question sought to be raised by the learned counsel was not urged before the Division Bench though in the grounds of the writ petition, a reference had been made to the above aspect. In our view, this review petition is nothing but an appeal in disguise. Petitioner cannot be allowed to urge a contention which was not argued by the learned counsel who appeared for him in the main petition. On that short ground, the review petition is liable to be rejected. We do so. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE). cl 3 R.P.No.193/2009