IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 904 of 2008(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23639/2008 Dated 06/08/2008 .................... PETITIONER : 5TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- P.C.BOSE, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PARAYANKARIYIL VEEDU, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST,. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6 TO 9: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. ROY.K.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, KODOOR KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. BHARATHI SREEDHARAN, W/O.SREEDHARAN, NADUPURAYIL HOUSE, KADAPOOR KARA, KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOTTAYAM. 7. GEORGE VARGHESE, S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARUMANOOR P.O., AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. MADYA VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI UNION (CITU) ETTUMANOOR RANGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, P.N.RAJAPPAN. 9. ETTUMANOOR CHETHUTHOZHILALI UNION (AITUC), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.V.JANARDHNAN. 10. K.M.SABU, KALLUVETTEL, PUNNATHURA WEST PUNNATHURA WEST P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- R.P. NO.904/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 O R D E R Review of the judgment in WP(c).No.23639/2008 is sought for by the 5th respondent in that case. 2. By the judgment all that has been directed is the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 issued by the 5th respondent be finalised, with notice to all concerned. In my view, there is absolutely no error vitiating the judgment, warranting interference. 2. The counsel for the petitioner apprehends that the judgment may have the effect of diluting the directions in Ext.R5(11) judgment in WP(c).No.21571/2008. The apprehension is totally baseless and this court has not issued any such directions. Review Petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 2