Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Anoop.v.K Vs Thankam — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2012)

Home
Kerala HC
2012
Anoop.v.K Vs ThankamAnoop.v.K v. Thankam

Disposed

Anoop.v.K v. Thankam

Kerala HC27 Jul 2012RP/699/2012

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2012/5TH SRAVANA 1934

RP.No. 699 of 2012 ()

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.15383/2012 DATED 16/07/2012

REVIEW PETITIONER/(NOT A PARTY):

ANOOP.V.K, S/O. KOCHANIYAN, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHEROOR, VILVATTOM, THRISSUR. (LICENSE OF ST.S NO.89/11-12 NELLAYI).

BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 :

1. THANKAM, W/O. CHERAI KESAVAN, CHERAI HOUSE, NELLAYI, THRISSUR-680 305.

2. C.K.LALU, CHERAI HOUSE, NELLAYI, THRISSUR-680 305.

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the direction in the impugned order requiring the second respondent to take note of Ext.P9 should be deleted if Ext.P9 has been set aside.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
ANOOP.V.K
respondent
THANKAM
respondent
C.K.LALU
respondent
A.K.RAJAN
respondent
COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
respondent

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Kerala HC
Decided on: 27 Jul 2012 · July
Registered: 25 Jul 2012
Case no.: RP/699/2012

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Antony Dominic

Varkey Kuriakose Vs Tahsildar
26 Jul 2012
G.Vijayanath Vs the Kottayam Municipality
26 Jul 2012
Raju.D. Vs Pattazhi Grama Panchayath
26 Jul 2012
Basudev Chakraborty Vs O.M.Prabhakaran
27 Jul 2012

Cite this judgement

Anoop.v.K v. Thankam, RP/699/2012 (KL), decided on 27 July 2012.

The High Court of Kerala publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

ANTONY DOMINIC

Parties & counsel

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction in the impugned order requiring the second respondent to take note of Ext.P9 should be deleted if Ext.P9 has been set aside.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

3. A.K.RAJAN, AYYANCHIRA HOUSE, NELLAYI, THRISSUR-680 305.

4. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 039.

5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,

EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 021.

6. E.P.SOMAN, S/O. PAZHONI ANDI, IDIYAMPOTTA HOUSE, NENMARA, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 508.

R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SEREENA GEORGE

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

........................................ R.P.699/2012 in W.P.(C).15383/2012 .............................................. Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2012

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader.

For the disposal of this Review Petition, it is unnecessary to issue notice to the sixth respondent.

Review is sought mainly on the ground that the judgment required the second respondent in the writ petition to take note of Ext.P9 order produced in the writ petition. It is pointed out that Ext.P9 order was set aside by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C). 221/2011. It is also stated, Ext.P11 order of the Commissioner of Excise shows that this order was revoked. This factual position is not disputed. If that be so, the direction requiring the second respondent to advert to Ext.P9 is an error. Therefore, the direction

R.P.699/12

2

in the judgment to the extent, it requires the second respondent to take note of Ext.P9 will stand deleted.

Review Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

mrcs

/true copy/ PA To Judge

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

Coram

AI extract

ANTONY DOMINIC

CNR

KLHC010364692012

Topic

Public Procurement and Tenders

Bench

Disposal

DISPOSED OF

Rema Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

27 Jul 2012

Kozhikode Dist.Headload&General Workers Vs the Dist.Collector,Kozhikode & 3 Ors.

27 Jul 2012