IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 712 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4504/2006 Dated 28/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS / RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(RR), FORT KOCHI. 4. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- THE COCHIN PORT TRUST WILLINGDON ISLAND ,COCHIN 682 009, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINNER K.VIDYADHARAN. BY ADV.SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, ALONG WITH R.P.NO.875/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 712/2008 in W.P.(C).4504/2006 & R.P. No. 875/2008 in W.P.(C).5791/2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August 2008 O R D E R Having heard the learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the writ petitioner, I do not find any grounds to review the judgment as such. 2. Learned Government Pleader presses into service Rule 4 (viii) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules to justify the demand for collection charges. He further submits that the validity of Rule 4(viii) was not the subject matter of challenge in any other writ petitions. I find that Rule 4(viii) was not a matter of fact pressed into service at the time of hearing of the writ petition. But, prima facie, I am of the view that, the arguments which were found to be not weighty enough by this court in relation to Rule 5, would apply to Rule 4(viii) also. It is not necessary to finally pronounce on this aspect, in as much as the parties have not joined issue on this aspect in the instant case. But, nevertheless, I do not find any ground to take a different view from what I have already taken in the judgment. I had taken note of the fact that both State and writ petitioner were respondents in the RP Nos.712 & 815 OF 2008 -:2:- land acquisition awards and ultimately the writ petitioner had satisfied the award by depositing the amount in court. For all these reasons, I do not find any grounds to review the judgment. But, I make it clear that, I have not considered the issue, which the learned Government Pleader submits, arises from Rule 4(viii) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules either in these Review Petitions or in the judgment which has led to these Review Petitions as such. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb