IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3395 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.T.CHACKO, WORKS CONTRACTOR, SANTHA BHAVAN, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), ADOOR. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 3395 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this Writ Petition had earlier been subjected to challenge by filing WP(C) 31358/2009. After elaborate consideration, figures, this Court observed in paragraph 4 of Ext.P8 judgment that the petitioner, if aggrieved was to file statutory appeal and that no interference needed to be made in the Writ Petition. However, taking note of the application filed by the petitioner for 'rectification of the error' stated as pending consideration before the first respondent, the said respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said petition after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in the manner specified therein. It was also made clear that the petitioner would have opportunity to file appeal from the modified orders, so to be passed, if so necessitated. The contentions raised in the Writ Petition reveals that, the rectification filed by the petitioner was considered and Ext.P11 order was passed. In spite of filing the appeal against Ext.P11 order and despite the specific observations made by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, the petitioner take a ‘U turn’ and approached this Court again by filing the present Writ Petition seeking for interference. This Court WP(C) No.3395/2010 2 does not find any justification in the course and conduct being pursued by the petitioner. More so, since the issue has become final, in view of the appropriate direction given vide Ext.P8 judgment. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed; however with liberty to challenge Ext.P11, in the manner as specified in Ext.P8. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc