IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1068 of 2009 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.934/2007 DATED 27.03.2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O) PALA, DISTRICT KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. K.G.MANIKANDAN NAIR, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI LAKSHMI NIVAS, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM. 2. BENOY, S/O. THANKAPPAN, KODALIKKANDATHIL, VAIKOM, DISTRICT KOTTAYAM. 3. P.S.SURESH, PAZHAYAMBILLIL HOUSE IDAMULAKKARA, AKALAKKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. INDIRA BHAICHAR, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEARKUNNAM, VANDANAM.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM R2 BY ADV.SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No. 1068 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Kurian Joseph, J. Admitted. Sri.Raghu Kottappuram takes notice. 2. This Review Petition is at the instance of the appellants who are respondents 1, 2 and 6 in the Writ Petition. 3. The issue pertains to the settlement of kist arrears by the writ petitioner. When the appeal came up before us, in view of the amnesty scheme available to the writ petitioner at the relevant time, we disposed of the appeal permitting the writ petitioner to avail the benefit of the scheme. However, it was made clear in the judgment itself that the amount, the writ petitioner has to pay under the Scheme is Rs.5,85,074/- (Rupees Five lakhs eighty five thousand and seventy four only). The amount referred to by us in the judgment is the amount calculated by the Departmental authorities and which was brought to our notice through the learned Government Pleader. 4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing it is brought to our notice that, the amount of liability referred to R.P.No. 1068 OF 2009 -:2:- above does not take in the fee during the period when toddy shops were departmentally managed. There is no dispute on this. But the contention of the writ petitioner is that they are not liable to pay the said fee at all. However, it is brought to our notice that the issue is pending as SLP No.24565 of 2008 before the Apex Court . 5. In that view of the matter we need only make it clear that, the amount referred to by us in the judgment and as suggested by the learned Government Pleader does not take in the liability of the writ petitioner to pay the departmental management fee. However, we make it further clear that the said liability will depend on the outcome of the matters now pending before the Supreme Court. The Review Petition is dismissed as above. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. Kurian Joseph, Judge. ttb R.P.No. 1068 OF 2009 -:3:-