IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 716 of 2010(A) --------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.11404/2010 DATED 2/6/2010) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INVESTIGATION-II, ERNAKULAM). 2. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER WPC: ------------------------------------------------------- SHEEL KUDIYIRIPPIL, KUDIYIRIPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI. K.M.V.PANDALAI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.716 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 R E F E R E N C E O R D E R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The review petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the judgment passed by this Court on 2.6.2010 whereby positive relief has been granted to the petitioner in the Writ Petition, to have the gold articles released, on the strength of the security to be furnished in the form of immovable property, to the satisfaction of the authority, without insisting for registration of the mortgage deed. 2. It is contended in paragraph 4 of the Review Petition that, at the time of hearing, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as per the decision reported in Allahabad Bank v. Ley Bros. [2010(1) KLT 765] was omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court and that the matter requires to be reconsidered in the said circumstance. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that the dictum laid down by R.P.No.716/2010 2 the Division Bench in the aforesaid case is not applicable to the case in hand and that the same stands entirely on a different footing. But the fact remains that the issue, whether the said dictum is applicable to the case in hand or not was a subject matter of consideration when the final verdict was passed by this Court as per the judgment dated 2.6.2010. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court holds that there is an 'error apparent on the face of the records' and as such, the matter requires to be reconsidered. Accordingly, the Review petition is allowed and the judgment passed by this Court is recalled. Post the Writ Petition before appropriate court immediately after Onam vacation. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) ps