IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 297 of 2010() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.3578 OF 2010 DTD. 4/02/2010 ......... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC: --------------------------------------------------------------------- T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, MS.SIGMA AGENCIES, SOUTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH, SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM. 3. INSPG.ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- R.P. No.297 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.3578 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this 5th the day of April, 2010. O R D E R This review petition is to modify the direction given by this Court, whereby the petitioner has been required to pay 1/3rd of the amount covered by Exts.P1 to P6 so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, for causing the appeals to be taken out of turn and decided forthwith. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance of some decisions referred by the Apex Court as projected in the 'grounds of review'; which were very much available for the petitioner when the Writ Petition was argued and it was after hearing the petitioner, that the final verdict was passed by this Court on 4.2.2010. That apart, it is also specifically recorded in the para 2 of the impugned judgment that the direction was being given by this Court to satisfy 1/3rd of the amount in dispute, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that similar matters have already been finalized by this Court giving appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and R.P. No.297 of 2010 2 finalise the appeals, subject to the condition that the concerned petitioners satisfied 1/3rd of the amount in dispute. 3. In the above circumstances, there is absolutely 'no error apparent on the face of the records', so as to justify the review. So also, the decisions sought to be relied on by the petitioner, mentioned in the grounds of review, are also not applicable to sustain the 'power and scope' of review. More so, when the scope and jurisdiction with regard to the power of review stands declared by the Apex Court in Meera Bhanja V. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (AIR 1995 SC 455) making it clear that, it is not a substitute for appeal. There is no merit. Review Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab