The Chief Commissioner Of Income … vs Madhu Mohan Pillai on 3 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21246 of 2009(S)


1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY

                        Vs



1. MADHU MOHAN PILLAI, S/O. G.CHELLAPPAN
                       ...       Respondent

2. C.K.SAJINI, W/O. AJIMON A.R.,

3. ROY M.K., S/O. M.P.KURIAKKO,

4. JAYASREE S.NAIR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :03/08/2009

 O R D E R
     K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.

                   ------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) No.21246 of 2009 S
                   ------------------------------

               Dated this, the 3rd day of August, 2009

                           JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The writ petitioners are the respondents in

O.A.No.452 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Ernakulam Bench. The said Original Application was disposed of

by Ext.P5 order dated 4.4.2008. The said decision was rendered

mainly relying on a decision of the Madras Bench of the Central

Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.558 of 2003 and connected

cases. The writ petitioner contended that the said order of the

Madras Bench is under challenge before the Apex Court and

therefore, the Tribunal may not follow that. But, the Tribunal

while disposing of the application by Ext.P5 order, stated as

follows:

“We appreciate this submission on behalf of the

applicants and accordingly we consider it appropriate

to direct the respondents that if and when it is decided

to implement the decision of the Madras Bench of the

Tribunal in O.A.558, 538 and 909 of 2003 by the

W.A.No.21246 of 2009:

– 2 –

Central Board of Excise and Customs, the same shall

also be made applicable to the applicants herein. With

the above direction, the O.A. is disposed of”.

Going by the above direction, the writ petitioners are in no way

prejudiced by the judgment of the Tribunal. If only the decision

of the Madras Bench in O.A.No.558 of 2003 and connected

cases is affirmed by the Apex Court, the writ petitioner need

implement the directions in Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal.

Therefore, the interest of the petitioners is safeguarded by the

Tribunal. In the above circumstances, we feel that the

petitioners have no ground to challenge the impugned order of

the Tribunal before this Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.

Sd/-

C.T. Ravikumar,
Judge.

DK.

(TRUE COPY)