Kerala High Court
Ani Kumar.T vs Sadayakumar.K.V on 11 March, 2013
Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2013/10TH JYAISHTA 1935
RP.No. 344 of 2013 (Z) IN OP(KAT).530/2013
--------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 530/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 11-03-2013
...............................
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/THIRD PARTIES :
----------------------------------------------------------
1. ANI KUMAR.T.
EXCISE INSPECTOR,
EXCISE INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. ASOKAN R.,
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE HEADQUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. BHUVANACHANDRAN S.,
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, NOORANAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
4. SASIDHARAN K.K.
EXCISE INSPECTOR, SEVEN SEAS DISTILLERY,MANNUTHY,
THRISSUR.
5. RAMESH LAL K.S.,
EXCISE INSPECTOR, MALABAR BREWERIES, CHALAKKUDY,
THRISSUR.
6. RADHAKRISHNAN K.,
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
7. BHADRAKUMARAN NAIR K.S.,
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CHECK POST, TILES FACTORY,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
8. SREEKANTAN NAIR S.
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE HEADQUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
9. SHAJI K.M.
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, THRISSUR.
AMV
: 2 :
RP.No. 344 of 2013 (Z) IN OP(KAT).530/2013
10. PRASAD O.,
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)
SRI.S.RAMESH
SRI.NAVEEN.T
SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS IN OPKAT :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SADAYAKUMAR.K.V., EXCISE INSPECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
EXCISE INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION BUREAU,
CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
2. T.V.DIVAKARAN,
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, VARAPPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM-683 517.
3. K.ABDUL AZEEZ, EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE,
SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673 592.
4. P.B.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
EXCISE INSPECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADDL. EXCISE COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT)
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5. SRI.P.L.JOSE,
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY-680 307.
6. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
7. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039.
8. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER),
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR
THE JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039.
R6 TO R8 BY ADV. NOBLE MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R5 BY SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
R1 TO R4 BY SRI.K.JAJU BABU
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31-05-2013, ALONG WITH RP. 345/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AMV
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
& B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.
..................................................
R.P. Nos.344 & 345 of 2013
.......................................................
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2013
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
O.P.(KAT) Nos.504 of 2013 & 530 of 2013 were tagged along for consideration. There was an interim order in O.P. (KAT) No.504/2013. That was carried over as an interim order in O.P.(KAT) No.530/2013. When the original petitions came up with a request for vacating those interim orders it was suggested that if the benefit of the Government Order which was challenged before the Tribunal is confined to P.L.Jose, the person who had moved the Government, the controversy between the parties then before this Court would end. It appears that in the meanwhile, an impleading petition was filed by third parties on the plea that the interim order granted by this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.504 of 2013 is essentially interdicting further promotions etc.
2. Taking the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for P.L.Jose and those who have instituted the two original petitions, it was then thought that it is appropriate that R.P. Nos.344 & 345 of 2013 2 an order could be granted confining the benefit of the Government Order to P.L.Jose. There was no objection at that point of time to this course being adopted.
3. However, the applications for review are filed by persons who say that they are also beneficiaries by the order rendered by the Government on the representation of P.L.Jose because, that order was generated also while considering certain other connected issues. They, therefore, stand to impeach the decisions rendered by this Court in the two original petitions, confining the benefit of the Government Order to P.L.Jose, without hearing them.
4. Hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the original petitions and the respondents therein, as also the learned counsel appearing for the impleading petitioners, we see that this Court had not elaborately, or, in depth, considered the basic substratum of the decision of the Tribunal, including the question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in not interfering with the decision of the Government. The resultant exercise of the Tribunal directing compliance of the Government Order is only R.P. Nos.344 & 345 of 2013 3 a corollary issue. In our view, this Court erred in disposing of the case by merely pegging the relief of the Government Order to P.L.Jose, without a deep and pervasive consideration of the contentions, as to the eligibility of P.L.Jose, to the benefit of the Government Order impugned before the Tribunal. This is an error apparent on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed. We are of the view that this has resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice and the review petitioners being condemned unheard. The situation discloses error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment rendered by this Bench on 11/3/2013 in O.P.(KAT) Nos. 504 of 2013 and 530 of 2013. Hence, we hold that the said judgment is liable to be reviewed and recalled, paving way for further consideration of the original petitions, including the request to vacate or modify the interim order granted in those original petitions.
In the result, RP Nos.344 & 345 of 2013 are allowed and the common judgment issued on 11/3/2013 in O.P.(KAT) Nos. 504 of 2013 and 530 of 2013 is reviewed and recalled. Resultantly, O.P.(KAT) Nos. 504 of 2013 and 530 of 2013 will stand listed appropriately in terms of the roster, including with R.P. Nos.344 & 345 of 2013 4 the request for modification or withdrawal of interim order. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the original petitions may be listed at the earliest since there is some stalemate in the promotions in the departments concerned.
sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) AMV/01/6/