IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 88 of 2010(G) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.27998/2004 DTD. 23/05/2009. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- KALPATHARU CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, KOCHI-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.RAMESH JETHABHAI NAGDA. BY ADV. MR.SREELAL WARRIAR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, KOCHI TALUK & ASSESSING AUTHORITY, TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= R.P. No. 88/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 27998/2004 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This petition is to review the judgment passed by this Court in the writ petition, holding that the prayer of the petitioner, to have the revision petition entertained and considered by the 1st respondent without insisting for the pre-conditional deposit of the second instalment of the building tax, could not be accepted under any circumstances, more so, where there is no provision for any such exemption in the Statute. 2. As specifically taken note of in the impugned verdict, the only prayer made by the petitioner was to direct the revisional authority to dispose of the revision petition as aforesaid and to direct the 2nd respondent not to take any further action pursuant to Ext.P14 notice. Since there was no attempt on the part of the petitioner to cause the writ petition to be amended in any manner, the verdict passed by this Court, especially when the legal question is not RP 88/2010 2 answered to the contrary, does not require to be reviewed and there is 'no error apparent on the face of the record'. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already satisfied the entire amount assessed by the 2nd respondent/assessing authority and that the petitioner might be given an opportunity to have the matter adjudicated before the 1st respondent/revisional authority. It is also stated that since the matter has not been considered on merit by the revisional authority and also by this Court, the dismissal of the writ petition might not be treated as a bar in this regard. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the fact that there is no decision on merits, either by the revisional authority or by this Court, even though interference is declined in the review petition, for want of any error apparent on the face of the records, it is made clear that the judgment passed by this Court shall not stand in the way of the 1st respondent/revisional authority to consider the matter on merits, if any such RP 88/2010 3 submission is made by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The review petition is dismissed, subject to the order as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE mn.