IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 818 of 2004(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28650/2004 Dated 04/10/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- T.S.NISHAT, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SAJINDRANATHAN, PREVENTIVE OFFICER (CUSTOMS), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOCHI 9, R/A. NO.24, CUSTOMS QUARTERS NORTH END, W.ISLAND, KOCHI 682 009. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINSITRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NEW DELHI. 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE ZONE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOCHI 682 009. 5. THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 30/05/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.818 OF 2004 IN W.P.(C)No.28650 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY, 2008 O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner prays for review of the judgment on the ground that this Court proceeded on the assumption that the respondents have filed a counter affidavit and they have raised a contention therein that there were not sufficient number of vacancies available for considering the petitioner who is a Preventive Officer for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Customs). The petitioner points out that in fact no counter affidavit was filed and therefore the respondents could not have taken any defence that there were not sufficient number of vacancies to consider the petitioner for promotion. 2. We notice that in this writ petition no counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. Therefore the assumption made by this Court that the respondents have filed a counter affidavit is wrong. It is an error apparent on the face of the record. We feel R.P.NO.818 OF 2004 -2- that the case of the petitioner should be considered after the respondents filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the judgment under review is recalled. W.P.(C)No.28650/04 is restored to file. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn