IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2007 / 2ND MAGHA 1928 RP.No. 84 of 2007(Y) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.836/2007 Dated 08/01/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G.PRADEEP, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN PILLAI, EXCISE INSPECTOR, EI & IB ALAPPUZHA. 2. RAJA SINGH, AGED 44 YEARS, S.VELAYUDHAN, EXCISE INSPECTOR, E.R.O.VAMANAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. K.K.ANILKUMAR, AGED YEARS, EXCISE INSPECTOR, E.I. & IB CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 4. K.R.BABU, EXCISE INSPECTOR, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, TRIVANDRUM. 5. ASHOK KUMAR.T.A., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, EXCISE INSPECTOR, ERO, KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ...2/- ...2.... R.P.NO.84/2007 2. THE COMMISSION OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER), REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENNOR AND JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. T.RAJU, EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN for R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN for R1 to R4 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.K.DENESAN, J ------------------------------- R.P.NO. 84 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2007 JUDGMENT The review petitioners have filed I.A.1002/2007 to get themselves impleaded as additional respondents. As per the order passed today in the above I.A., nothing remains to be decided on merits in the review petition. It is open to the review petitioners to file counter affidavit in the writ petition in their capacity as additional respondents. Since the Impleading petition has been allowed, the counsel for the petitioner submits that R.P.No.84/2007 may be permitted to be withdrawn so that the review petitioners will effectively put forward their contentions in the writ petition itself. Recording the above submission, the review petition is disposed of. K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)No. 2