Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946 RP NO. 418 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2022 IN WP(C) NO.12435 OF 2022 REVIEW PETITIONER:
RAJ TRADERS, AGED 34 YEARS OPPOSITE FEDERAL BANK MANNACHERI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. JANNATHUL FIRDOUSE, PIN – 688538 BY ADV ANOOP ELIAS RESPONDENTS:
1 BANK OF BARODA, ROSARB, PALLIMUKKU, M.G ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PIN – 682016 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN – 695001 3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688001 4 TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, AMBALAPUZHA, KIDANGAPARAMBAU, ALAPPUZHA-, PIN – 688013 5 SUB REGISTRAR, MARRARIKULAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MARRARIKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-, PIN – 688522 6 VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNANCHERRY VILLAGE, MANNANCHERRY P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-, PIN – 688538 7 M.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 70 YEARS S/O BHASKARA PANICKER, PULIMOOTTIL BUILDING, MANNANCHERY P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 PRESENTLY AT PATHMASREE HOUSE, POLLETHAI P.O. KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, (ADDRESS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.2/2023 IN W.A 1739/2023), PIN – 688522
RP 418/24 2 8 RAJAKAKSHMI, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O BHASKARA PANICKER, PULIMOOTTIL BUILDING, MANNANCHERY P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- PRESENTLY AT PATHMASREE HOUSE, POLLETHAI P.O.
KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - (ADDRESS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.2/2023 IN W.A 1739/2023), PIN – 688522 9 AIT AND ST OFFICER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN – 688538 BY ADVS SRI.MOHAMED SAGEER T A SRI SAIJO HASSAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP 418/24 3 O R D E R When this matter was called today, Sri.Anoop Elias – learned counsel for the petitioner, tried to impress this Court that this application for review of the judgment dated 08.04.2022 was necessitated because, this Court had not been told that the properties of respondents 7 and 8 have already been attached and directed to be sold by the District Collector, after obtaining an Evaluation Certificate.
2.
I am afraid that the afore submissions are not tenable because, what was prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition was that the attachment over his property be ‘shifted’ to that owned by respondents 7 and 8. However, the question as to which of those properties are to be sold by the State and in what manner and sequence, were not issues that were considered by this Court at all in the judgment.
3.
Obviously, therefore, if any attempt to sell the property is taken forward, the petitioner can invoke remedies that are available to him; and this has been expressly reserved in the
RP 418/24 4 judgment also.
4.
In the afore circumstances, I see no reason to entertain this petition because, what is now being attempted to be done is to seek a rehearing of the Writ Petition itself.
With the afore clarification, this Review Petition is closed.
Sd/- RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
RP 418/24 5 APPENDIX OF RP 418/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A 1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-1.
Annexure A 2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-2.
Annexure A 3 TRUE COPY JUDGEMENT IN W.A NO.1739/2023 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE A3.