IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 21 of 2010(E)
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETRY
... Petitioner
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
Vs
1. SAJU, S/O. ABRAHAM, BARMAN,
... Respondent
2. MARYKUTTY BABY,
3. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :22/03/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.21/2010 in O.P.1728/2001-E
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010.
Order
This review petition is filed by the State
Government essentially doubting the scope of the
word ‘allowed’ in the last sentence of the
judgment sought to be reviewed. All that the said
word means is that the writ petitioner in
O.P.1728/2001 will be entitled to same reliefs as
the successful party in Sunil v. State of Kerala,
2006(2) KLT 851. This review petition is
accordingly ordered directing that the judgment
sought to be reviewed will stand clarified to the
effect that the writ petitioner therein will be
entitled to the benefits of the judgment of Sunil
(supra) and nothing more by virtue of the
judgment sought to be reviewed.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/2203