IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 1057 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3703/2005 Dated 04/07/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------- K.M.BINDHU, KALIYAR THOTTATHIL HOUSE, ANJUKUNNU AMSOM, EACHOME DESOM, EACHOME P.O., MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 2. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TAXES (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss RP. NO.1057/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.T.R.184/2005 DTD. 11.3.2005. B:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENTIN WP(C) 16679/2004 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.1057 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 ORDER This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in Writ Petition No.3703 of 2005, which was disposed of by the judgment dated 04.07.2008. 2. The allegations in the Writ Petition are that on 03.11.2003, notification was invited for appointment of stamp vendors at Konichira in Wayanad District. The petitioner made application in response to the notification and she was also interviewed on 17.11.2003. Subsequently, Ext.P1 order dated 06.03.2004 was issued by the first respondent appointing the petitioner as stamp vendor. 3. Thereafter also license was not issued and therefore, she filed the above Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was finally heard and was disposed of by judgment dated 04.07.2008 directing that in view of the lapse of time, if the petitioner still has any grievance, she can approach the first respondent. R.P.No.1057 of 2008 2 4. In this Review Petition, petitioner submits that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, an interim order was passed by this court on 03.02.2005 directing consideration of Ext.P2 representation. It is stated that accordingly the representation was considered and Annexure A order dated 11.03.2005 was issued stating that by order dated 22.10.2004, the Secretary Taxes, Government of Kerala had directed cancellation of the orders appointing stamp vendors in Wayanad District and that therefore, license cannot be issued to the petitioner. 5. It is also stated that a similarly situated stamp vendor had approached this court by filing Writ Petition 16679/2004 and that in that Writ Petition, this court passed order dated 04.10.2004 directing the District Treasury Officer, Wayanad to issue license to the petitioner therein. From a copy of this order, it is seen that such an order was passed on the reasoning that once an order of appointment has been issued, in the absence of any power in that regard, respondents could not have reviewed the order and cancelled the same. Petitioner says that on the R.P.No.1057 of 2008 3 basis of interim order, the license was issued to the petitioner in W.P.(c) No.16679/2004 and that the said license is still functioning. He also referred to Ext.P5 judgment in that Writ Petition. 6. On these basis, it is submitted that Writ Petition 3703 of 2005 filed by her was disposed of, without considering the directions in Writ Petition No.16679/2004 and the fact that the license has been granted to the petitioner therein. 7. I have heard the Government Pleader. Annexure A order passed by the respondents refusing to issue license to the petitioner in view of the directions issued by the Secretary Taxes, was referred. Learned government Pleader also submits that even as of now no stamp vendors are appointed at Konichira subject to which, the petitioner was appointed. Further the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(c) No.16679/2004 is still continuing is also not a matter, it is contradicted. From the submission, it is evident that, it was without adverting to the facts pointed out above that Writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein was R.P.No.1057 of 2008 4 disposed of. I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated and there is error apparent on the face of records and therefore, judgment dated 04.07.2008 disposing of Writ Petition No.3703/2005 is reopened and R.P.No.1057/2008 is allowed. sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE /True copy/ P.A. to judge ln