IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1031 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1067/2007 Dated 08/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS --------------------------- 1. S.MURUGAR SELVI, W/O.LATE E.SATHEESH KUMAR, 144-145, DPF STREET, PAPPANAICKENPALAYAM, COIMBATORE-37, TAMIL NADU. 2. S.DHINA ESWAR, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.S.MURUGAR SELVI (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, THE IST APPELLANT RESIDING DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TRICHUR. 4. NITHISH SIDHAN, S/O.V.K.SIDDAN, "SRINIDHI", LAKSHMI NAGAR, WEST FORT, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 5. T.K.SAJEEVAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, THASHNATH HOUSE, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, THASHNATH HOUSE, CHENTRAPPINNI, THRISSUR. 6. OMANA ASHOKAN, W/O.V.K.ASHOKAN, "SREELAKSHMI", BEENNET ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR. 7. V.A.DANY, S/O.V.K.ASHOKAN, RESIDING DO. R.P.No.1031 of 2009 : 2 : 8. DEENI DIPIN, W/O.DIPIN, "REVATHY", KURUMBUR HOUSE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 9. RUKMINI, W/O.LATE ESWARA MOORTHY, 95-B SREENIVASAPURAM, AVINASHI MAIN ROAD, AVINASHI, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- R.P. No.1031 of 2009 in W.A.No.1067 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd November, 2009 O R D E R Raman, J. Review petitioners who are the appellants, seek a review of the judgment in W.A.No.1067 of 2007. The review petitioners are also the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.8577 of 2007. It is against the dismissal of the writ petition that the writ appeal itself was preferred. By an elaborate judgment, we have considered the contentions and dismissed the writ appeal. So however, we have made clear that the prima facie view based on which sanction is granted by the Commissioner of Excise under the Abkari Act and Rules will not affect the right of the parties, if any, to be adjudicated in the civil suit pending between the parties. It is submitted that the said civil suit will not take in the contention as is now raised. If so, the only clarification required is to make it clear that whatever findings arrived at by the 6th R.P.No.1031 of 2009 2 respondent will always be subject to the right of parties to be adjudicated before the Civil court, either in the pending suit or in a fresh suit, if any, that may be instituted, as may be advised. Since the review petition is not a re-hearing of the matter, we do not find any error of law apparent on the face of record. Subject to the above observation, the review petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.