IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 110 of 2009(I) AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3021/2008 Dated 28/02/2008 REVIEW PETITIONER(S): DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI -17. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES, PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI -17 3. MICROWAVE PRODUCTS (INDIA) LIMITED, REPRSENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,K.V. GOPINATHAN NAIR, THACHERI HOUSE, NADUVATH NAGAR, CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY. 4. P.D. JOSE, PARAMBATH HOUSE, POOVATHUSSERY, P.O., PARAKKADAVU, ERNAKULAM. 5. A.O. THOMAS, ACHANDI HOUSE, ANALOOR P.O., CHALAKUDY, 6. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, D.R.T. ERNAKULAM, 7. CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LTD., REPRESENTED BY T.P. GEORGE, ARE HEAD (RECOVERY), CENTRIAN BANK OF PUNJAB LTD., INDIAN EXPRESS BUILDING, KALOOR, KOCHI -17. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.S.SHARAN FOR R3 SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS FOR R4,5 SRI. S. GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SMT. SHERLY K. FRANCIS SRI. P.B. SURESHKUMAR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R. P. No. 110 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th May, 2009. O R D E R This is a review petition filed by the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District, seeking review of the judgment in W.P(C) No.3021/2008 on the ground that under Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the State has first charge over the properties in question, which has been directed to be sold and the amount paid to the provident fund authorities, which fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court since the State was not a party to the writ petition. According to the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner in the review petition, without considering the claim of the State for superior charge over the property for sales tax arrears, the matter could not have been disposed of. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the Provident Fund Organisation on the ground that the charge in favour of the Provident Fund Organisation is as per the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, a Central Act and as between the Central Act and the State Act, the charge in the Central Act would prevail. 2. Whatever be the merits of the rival contentions, I am of opinion that in so far as I had not considered that question in the writ petition, and the State was not a party to the writ petition, the judgment needs to be reviewed. Accordingly, my judgment dated 28-2-2008 in W.P(C) No. 3021/2008 is reviewed and the writ petition R.P. No. 110/2009 -: 2 :- is restored to file. 3. Counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submit that the immovable properties have not yet been sold and the sale is fixed on 15-6-2009. Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that the said sale may be allowed to be proceeded with. The parties can seek interim orders in this regard from the appropriate court. Post the writ petition before the appropriate court next week. The review petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.