High Court Kerala High Court

Inspecting Assistant … vs The Pullangode Rubber And Produce … on 26 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Inspecting Assistant … vs The Pullangode Rubber And Produce … on 26 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 853 of 2008(H)


1. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOCHI.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

                        Vs



1. THE PULLANGODE RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO.,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :26/08/2008

 O R D E R
                            V. GIRI, J.
       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    R.P. No. 853 of 2008
                  in W.P.(C).7847 of 2006
       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         Dated this the 26th day of August 2008

                            O R D E R

Having heard the learned Government

Pleader and learned counsel for the writ

petitioner, I do not find any grounds to review the

judgment as such.

2. Learned Government Pleader presses into

service Rule 4(viii) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery

Rules to justify the demand for collection charges.

He further submits that the validity of Rule 4

(viii) was not the subject matter of challenge in

any other writ petition. I find that Rule 4(viii)

was not a matter of fact pressed into service at

the time of hearing of the writ petition. But,

prima facie, I am of the view that, the arguments

which were found to be not weighty enough by this

court in relation to Rule 5, would apply to Rule 4

(viii) also. It is not necessary to finally

pronounce on this aspect, in as much as the parties

have not joined issue on this aspect in the instant

case. But, nevertheless, I do not find any ground

to take a different view from what I have already

taken in the judgment. I had taken note of the

RP No.853 OF 2008
in W.P.(C).7847 of 2006
-: 2 :-

fact that both State and writ petitioner were

respondents in the land acquisition awards and

ultimately the writ petitioner had satisfied the

award by depositing the amount in court.

For all these reasons, I do not find any

grounds to review the judgment. But, I make it

clear that, I have not considered the issue, which

the learned Government Pleader submits, arises from

Rule 4(viii) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules

either in this Review Petition or in the judgment

which has led to this Review Petition as such.

Sd/-

(V.GIRI)
JUDGE)

sk/-

//true copy//

P.S. To Judge