IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 1187 of 2009(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2387/2009 Dated 09/11/2009 ............. REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS: --------------------------------- 1. JOY VARGHESE, FORMERLY EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, PRESENTLY EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD. 2. SURESH KUMAR.T., FORMERLY EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MATTANCHERRY, PRESENTLY EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR. 3. BABU.T.K., FORMERLY EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KALADY, PRESENTLY EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ANGAMALY. 4. VINOD.T.M., EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.RAMESH. C.R. SRI.K.V.VIMAL SRI.JOVY GEORGE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 4. P.M.JANARDHANAN, EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ALUVA. 5. K.RAJKUMAR, EXCISE GUARD, K.S.B.C., WAREHOUSE, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R4-R5 SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.K.MUAHMMED PUZHAKKARA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 1187 of 2009 in W.A. No. 2387 of 2009-D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 Order Basheer, J: Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel who appears for respondents 4 and 5 and having perused the grounds urged in the memorandum of review petition, we are not satisfied that there is any error apparent on the face of the record which is amenable for correction as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore the review petition is liable to be dismissed. We do so. 2. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the time fixed by the Division Bench to prefer objections may be enlarged by at least 4 weeks from today. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to allow the said prayer. Objections, if any, that may be raised by the petitioners shall be entertained by the authority concerned, if they are preferred within four weeks from today. A.K. Basheer Judge. an. C.T. Ravikumar Judge.