IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 507 of 2008(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33030/2007 Dated 30/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER. ------------------------------------------ MUTHOOT TECHNOPOLIS, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE (CSEZ), CSEZ POST, KAKKANAD - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WPC. ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE TAHAZILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT 0F KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 5. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, CSEZ KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008,THE COURT ON 17/06/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==================== R.P.No. 507 of 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 33030 OF 2007 (F) ==================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 30th of January, 2008 in WP(C) No.33030/07. 2. When the review was taken up for consideration, the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner prayed that the judgment may be reviewed and the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn as the petitioner wanted to urge his claim for exemption from building tax before the statutory authorities. Since the question of considering the request for grant of permission to withdraw a writ petition arises only if the judgment is reviewed, though the learned counsel did not address any argument on the grounds urged for review, still I proceed to consider the grounds pleaded. 3. In the judgment dated 30th of January, 2008, the contention raised by the review petitioner that it is a co-developer of an Information Technology Park situated within the Cochin Special Economic Zone, was rejected in view of the provisions contained in the Special Economic Zones RP No.507/08 in WPC No.33030/07(F) :2 : Act and the contention that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from the Building Tax leviable under the Kerala Building Tax Act was negatived. 4. Along with the review petition, the petitioner has produced Annexures A to E to contend that it is a co-developer under the SEZ Act, 2005. In support of its plea that it has been granted approval by the Board of Approval constituted under the SEZ Act, what is mainly relied on by the petitioner is Annexure B. In my view, even if Annexure B and the other Annexures now produced are taken into consideration and it is accepted that the petitioner is a co-developer under the SEZ Act, 2005, still the petitioner has not made out a case for exemption as provided in Section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 5. At best, once it is accepted that the petitioner is a co- developer, what the petitioner possibly can claim is the benefit of Exts.P1 and P2 government orders. Ext.P1 provides that the units set up within the Cochin Special Economic Zone are eligible for the benefits mentioned therein which includes exemption from the payment of property tax. Ext.P2 provides that the industrial units and other establishments established within the Special Economic Zone in the State are exempted from tax, cess etc as leviable under Section 200 of the Kerala Panchayat RP No.507/08 in WPC No.33030/07(F) :3 : Raj Act, 1994. In the writ petition, what was claimed by the petitioner was exemption from the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Therefore, even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that the petitioner is a co-developer and is eligible for the benefit of Exts. P1 and P2 still that does not make them eligible in any manner for the benefit of exemption under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 6. In the judgment, ineligibility of the petitioner for the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act has been dealt with in para 11 and it has been specifically found that the petitioner has not even pleaded that the establishments in their premises are licensed factories. Nothing has been produced to conclude that this finding needs to be reviewed. Therefore, I am not persuaded to hold that the judgment deserves to be reviewed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another {(1981) 3 SCC 72}, Ulagappa and Others v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others {(2001) 10 SCC 639}, Yashwant Kumar N. Bhambhani v. University of Delhi and others {(2001)10 SCC 690} and T.N.Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal RP No.507/08 in WPC No.33030/07(F) :4 : and others {(2007)9 SCC 255} to contend that the petitioner is entitled to seek withdrawal of the writ petition even at this stage. 8. I have gone through the judgments relied on by the counsel. In my view, none of these judgments support this contention that once a writ petition is argued and a judgment is rendered court on merits, a litigant is entitled to file review and seek the withdrawal of the writ petition in order to enable him to urge the very same claim which has been negatived by the court, before statutory authorities. None of the judgments relied on by the counsel supports the plea now raised. Therefore, I am not persuaded to allow this review petition and the review petition will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Rp