IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 7595 of 2004(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ MANNADIKONAM HANDLOOM WEAVER'S (PRODUCTION-CUM-SALE) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO. H.22, KATTACHALKUZHI, RASALPURAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPD. BY ITS SECRETARY TO INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS & TEXTILES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DIST. INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING. W.P.(C).7595/2004-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPIES OF THE APPROVED EXCERTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HLC6/10643/96 DATED 24/03/1999 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESP0NDENT FIXING THE REBATE AMOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 1993-94. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HLC5/188/99 DATED 27/03/1999 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FIXING THE REBATE AMOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 1994-95. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO.10001/99 DATED 26/07/2002. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30/09/02 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.7516/C2/03/ID DATED 05/05/2003 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE EXT.P5 APPEAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF REBATE CLAIMS SANCTIONED AND DISALLOWED WITH REASONS FOR DISALLOWING. // TRUE COPY // Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.7595 of 2004-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner claimed for refund of the rebate granted by it in the handloom sector. It is true that the petitioner had been extended such benefit during the previous years. On directions of this Court, the competent authority in the Government considered the claim. It was found against. The Government in appeal issued Ext.P6 order affirming the decision. A reading of Ext.P6 clearly shows that the competent authorities, in particular, the Government, have gone into the entire issues on facts and have come to the definite conclusion that the claim of the petitioner is not to be allowed. Weighing the materials placed by the petitioner, the Government decided that the claim cannot be WP(C)7595/2004 -: 2 :- admitted since that could only be treated as bogus for the different reasons stated in Ext.P6, particularly in paragraph 6 thereof. Having considered the contents of Ext.P6, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same in exercise of authority under Article 226. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160708