IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1089 of 2008(C) ---------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.23969/08 DT 13/8/2008) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- GEORGE JAMES, S/O.JAMES AGED 41, VETTAMVELIL (H),PADINJAREKKARA.P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA(ALAPPUZHA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), VAIKOM. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMED THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON 06/11/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== R.P.No.1089 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 23969 OF 2008 (C) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The review of the judgment in WPC No.23969/08 is sought for by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ petition was disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent shall quantify the liability of the petitioner with notice to him. Though several contentions on the merits of the dispute were urged in the writ petition, it was held that the only contention that deserves acceptance was the one regarding unilateral quantification of the liability as reflected in Exts.P8(a) and P8(b) notices under the Revenue Recovery Act issued to the petitioner. Petitioner now contends that he had valid contentions regarding the merits of the claim and that this Court foreclosed his contentions without examining the correctness of same. It is on that basis, the review is sought for. 3. Having gone through the judgment, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner. As is seen from para 4 of the judgment dated 13/8/2008, without examining the merits of the contentions, it has been held that the contentions on the merits do not deserve acceptance. RP 1089/08 in WP(C) No. 23969/08 :2 : By this finding, the petitioner's remedies are foreclosed and this certainly is prejudicial to the petitioner. For that reason, I am inclined to review the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment dated 13/08/2008 will stand reviewed and is recalled. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp