IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 468 of 2011() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10542/2011,DATED 04/04/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WPC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY, TAXES(A) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,COMMISSIONORATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IN THE WPC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.L.ITTICHAN, S/O.LATE LONAPPAN ITTICHAN, 3/133,MERLIN, NELLIKUNNU.P.O., THRISSUR. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR(TOURISM), INDIA TOURIST OFFICE, OPP.SPENCER PLAZA, ANNA SALAI, MOUNT ROAD, CHENNAI.PIN- 600 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INDIA TOURISM(KOCHI), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, WILLINGDON ISLAND,KOCHI-682 009. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- R.P. NO.468 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C).No.10542 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 ORDER This Review Petition is directed against the common order dated 4.4.2011 passed in W.P.(C).Nos.10362, 10437, 10542, 10625, 10626, 10726 & 10786 of 2011. As per the common order dated 4.4.2011, this Court directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Excise to take up the applications submitted by the petitioners for renewal of their FL3 licenses and pass appropriate orders thereon without insisting production of certificate of re-classification issued by the Regional Director(Tourism), India Tourism Office, Chennai in view of the facts and circumstances available in the said writ petitions. While passing the said common order, the rival contentions were succinctly taken note of. The review petitioner is aggrieved by the last sentence in Paragraph 3 of the order. It reads thus:- “It is to be noted that the last proviso to Rule 13(3) was introduced after the said judgment and that would definitely make the case of the petitioner on a firmer footing than the case of the petitioners in WPC No.9865 of 2006.” According to the review petitioner, it is an observation which may R.P NO.468/2011 in W.P.(C).No. 10542/2011 2 ultimately affect the merits of the case at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. In the common order, this Court has not made any observation or findings touching the merits of the rival contentions. Those are only the circumstances taken in to account to decide whether there is a prima facie case enabling the petitioners to obtain an interim order. Undoubtedly, such circumstances cannot affect the merits of the rival contentions at the time of final disposal of the writ petitions. Therefore, there is no basis or reason for such an apprehension. With the said clarification, this review petition is closed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc R.P NO.468/2011 in W.P.(C).No. 10542/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 R.P NO.468/2011 in W.P.(C).No. 10542/2011 4