The Court dismissed a review petition where the petitioner claimed inability to appear due to remote location and alleged offhand apprehensions of bias. Finding no error apparent on the face of the records regarding the original order, the Court closed the petition.
Review petition closed; no further consideration required.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH ASWINA 1934
RP.No. 849 of 2012 () IN WPC/12299/2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.12299/2012 DATED 22-08-2012
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER :
M.A.K.AZAD, PROPRIETOR, M/S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE LINKS PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.) SRI.C.N.MIDHUN
RESPONDENTS/RSPONDENT:
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, TRIPPUNITHURA, 682 301.
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 682 011.
R BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. MANOJ K. KUNJACHAN.(TAXES)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
RP.No. 849 of 2012 () IN WPC/12299/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:
ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 13/9/2012.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
BP
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
........................................... R.P.No. 849 of 2012 in WP(C)No. 12299 of 2012
............................................ DATED 1st OCTOBER, 2012
ORDER
This review petition is filed by the petitioner stating that the specific direction given by this Court to appear before the concerned respondent with all necessary documents on 10.9.2012 could not be given effect to, for the fact that the petitioner was far away in a remote village, in connection with the agricultural activities being pursued by him and that he came to know about the said direction only subsequently on 12.09.2012. Immediately, the petitioner made a request before the first respondent as borne by Annexure 1 dated 13.9.2012, seeking for one more opportunity to substantiate his case and it was sent by registered post on the same day, as borne by the postal receipt pasted
on Annexure 1. There is also a prayer to have the matter considered by another officer, apprehending
RP 849/12
2
adverse orders, if dealt with by the same officer who passed the order earlier, which stands set aside by this Court.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
lgk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed due to inability to comply with a direction should be admitted when the court finds no error apparent on the face of the records.
M.A.K. Azad
The Commercial Tax Officer, IIInd Circle, Trippunithura
The Deputy Tahsildar (R.R) Kanayanoor Taluk, Ernakulam
P.R. Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
