IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 112 of 2010(V) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10042/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. N.S.LENIN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN (LATE), NADUVILEPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. M.S.SANJAYKUMAR, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN (LATE), MONATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PERIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. T.R.PRAJEESH, S/O.T.K.RAJAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKATTUSSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. P.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.SUDHEENDRAN, PONATHIL HOUSE, EDATHURUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV.V.C.THOMAS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 112 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 O R D E R The State has filed this review petition contending that there was a mistake in my judgment dated 2.4.2009, wherein this Court has relied on a counter affidavit allegedly filed by the State. According to the learned Government Pleader, no counter affidavit has been filed. Further, the learned Government Pleader points out that the licence in question was not issued to the petitioner for the first time in 2005-06 as contended by the petitioner in the writ petition. The licence was extended from 2002-03 onwards, which was being renewed year to year, which not taken note of by this Court. According to the petitioner, the contentions of the petitioner regarding exemption from payment of tree tax would survive only if the licence was issued for the first time in 2005-06. After hearing, I am satisfied that some serious mistakes have been crept into the judgment inadvertently, which calls for the review of my judgment. Therefore, I recall my judgment dated 2.4.2009 and post the writ petition for fresh hearing. The Review Petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2