A.M. Sadique v. Deputy Tahsildar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936 RP.No. 104 of 2015 () IN WP(C).34204/2014 ------------------------------------------- WP(C) 34204/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA ================= REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
------------------------------------------------- A.M. SADIQUE, AGED 46 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT, . LTD. SXL/4216, STAR COTTAGE, ST.ALBERT'S SCHOOL LANE COCHIN -31 BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------------------------
1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICER KANAYANNUR TALUK. ERNAKULAM - 682 011
2. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED., CHOICE TOWER, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOCHI -16 REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER (LEGAL) SRI.G.SANJAY
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM - 682030 R1 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC, KSIDC LTD.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 104 of 2015 () IN WP(C).34204/2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-1 COPY OF THE WARRANT FOR THE RECOVERY OF FINE ORDER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ANNEXRUE-2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.2678/2001 ANNEXURE-3 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.34204/2014 DATED 17.12.2014 ANNEXURE-4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.09.2014 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD
P. UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- Review Petition No.104 of 2015 In W.P.(C) No.34204 OF 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner herein seeks review of the judgment dated 17.12.2014 in W.P.(C)No.34204/2014. On hearing both sides, I find no reason for review of the judgment. The petitioner's concern is that the Revenue Tahsildar has been demanding money from him in enforcement of the sentence imposed by the trial court. It is already made clear that the petitioner herein is not liable for any amount, because he stands acquitted. The amount is due from the company. Whatever amount due by way of fine can be realised only from the company. Personally, the petitioner is not liable, and he has nothing to worry. It is again clarified that the petitioner, as a person, has no liability at all, and that whatever amount due from the company will have to be realised from the company by the Revenue Tahsildar. With such clarification, this review petition is closed. Sd/- P. UBAID, JUDGE sd