IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 40 of 2011(B) ----------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.34811/2010 DATED 22/11/2010] .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- K.K.DAVIS (PROPRIETOR), M/S.ALDA ENTERPRISES, KARIKKATH LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.TONY CHACKO, SRI.K.I.SAGEER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKING STATION, MENONPARA, PIN – 678 556. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECKPOST, WALAYAR – 678 624. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. *********************** R.P.No.40 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.34811 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The Review Petition is filed on the premise that, while disposing the Writ Petition prayer made under relief (c) has not been considered. The said relief is in the nature of a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to see that respondents 1 and 2 and other subordinate officers are complying with the directions contained in Ext.P5 circular in its letter and spirit. 2. In the judgment, it is specifically noted that, grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not finalising the enquiry in view of Ext.P5 circular. But it is also noted that, contention of the respondent/Government is that Ext.P5 circular is not applicable since the petitioner is a registered dealer within the State. However, since the enquiry was to be finalised, I made it clear that I am not considering merits of the rival contentions. On the other hand, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the concerned authority to finalise the enquiry. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent warranting R.P.No.40 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.34811 of 2010 2 review of the judgment. Non consideration of any of the reliefs could not be alleged under the above mentioned circumstances. Hence the review petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that the contention regarding applicability of Ext.P5 circular has not been concluded through the judgment and it is left open for agitation. 4. The Review Petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) rtr/