IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 629 of 2010(L) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.12299/1999 Dated 05/09/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN O.P -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. N.M.KARTHIKEYAN, NELLIPARAMBATHU HOUSE METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR 680 664. 2. KANNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KUDILINKAL HOUSE MATHILAKAM, P.O., KODUNGALLLOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P. No. 629 of 2010 in O.P. No. 12299 of 1999 L ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 O R D E R The respondent herein filed an Original Petition in 1999, seeking renewal of FL-3 licence. This Court passed interim order on 25-05-1999 directing that pending disposal of the Original Petition the licence be renewed on a provisional basis. 2. In pursuance to the said order, on 04-06-1999, after collecting all the dues that was payable, the licence was renewed subject to the result of the original petition. That position continued throughout and the licence was renewed every year. 3. Finally, making the interim order absolute, the original petition was disposed of by judgment dated 05-09- 2008. Even thereafter, the licence was being renewed from year to year. Now a review petition is filed by the respondent, which is accompanied by an application for condonation of RP No.629/2010 : 2 : delay of 641 days. There is absolutely no reason much less any satisfactory reason, explaining the delay and, therefore, the delay petition itself is liable to be rejected. Even otherwise, I am not satisfied that the respondent has made out any case of an error apparent on the face of the records warranting exercise of review power. Therefore, I am not inclined to review the judgment at this distance of time. Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge