IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 3403 of 2006(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- THE KERALA PERMANENT BENEFIT FUND LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.S.S.UNION BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, ALUVA-683 101. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE(H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR), ALUVA. 5. K.K.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT RAJESH BHAVAN, WEST DESOM KARA, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA-3. 6. ALIYAR, RESIDING AT MANTHARA MALAYIL HOUSE, KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA-2. ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI FOR R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.3403/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 17.7.2003. P2:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION DT. 24.5.2005. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER SEEKING TO CONDONE DELAY IN FILING THE REVISION PETITION DT. 20.5.2005. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 8.6.2005. P5:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION DT. 18.7.2005. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDE DT. 21.12.2005 AND SERVED ON THE PETITIONER COMPANY DT. 3.1.2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3403 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 15th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The grievance is on Ext.P6 order passed by the Government whereby Ext.P5 revision filed by the petitioner under Section 83(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was rejected. It is submitted that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for hearing. Still further, it is contended that there is no consideration on merits. There is no counter affidavit. Apparently, there is force in the submissions made by the petitioner. I quash Ext.P6. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 afresh with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law on merits, adverting to the contentions taken by the petitioner. Respondents 5 and 6 will also be afforded an opportunity for hearing in the process. The writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3403 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 15th October, 2008.