IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4700 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. DOORCAS MARKET MAKERS (PVT.)LTD. SREEPADMAM-4, 500D, P.V.SREEDHARAM STREET KUMBALAM POST, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) MR.S.MARIA JOSEPH FERNANDEZ BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSMT) SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. W.P.(C)NO. 4700 of 2008. DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P4 is a notice issued by the 2nd respondent to which the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 reply mainly relying on Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner apprehends that ignoring the reply and Ext.P3, orders adverse to them will be passed by the 2nd respondent. Though if, as a matter of fact, Ext.P5 reply has been filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent along with a copy of Ext.P3, appellate order of the Tribunal, I have no reason to think that the second respondent will ignore the contentions raised in Ext.P5 reply and Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal. In my view this is a baseless apprehension. Therefore, it will not be necessary to issue any direction as sought in the writ petition, since even otherwise the second respondent is obliged to deal with the contentions of the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of. ks. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE CRA 2 K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================