State Of Kerala v. Atlas Gold Town Ship (P)Ltd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015/10TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 184 of 2015 () ------------------------------ THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.1769/2013 DATED 05-11-2014. ......
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C).:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -692 035.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, DIRECTORATE OF REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, VANCHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -692 035.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) , SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD , ERNAKULAM, M.G. ROAD P.O, KOCHI- 682 016.
4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ANGAMALY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ANGAMALY P.O, PIN-683 572.
5. K.C. MADHU, THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD , ERNAKULAM, M.G ROAD P.O, KOCHI- 682 016.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.T. SHEEBA.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C).:
-------------------------------------------------------- M/S.ATLAS GOLD TOWNSHIPS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.SANIL A.S., S/O. A.N. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT ATTIKUDI HOUSE, NEDUVANNOOR KARA, CHOWWARA P.O, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 571.
BY ADVS. SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC, SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
------------------------------------ R.P.No.184 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.1769 of 2013 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2015
O R D E R
This review petition is filed by the State for reviewing the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.1769/2013.
2. The learned Government Pleader points out that, the writ petitioner was not entitled for stamp duty at concessional rates, as the document was not executed within six months from the date of obtaining building number.
3. As seen from the judgment itself, that was not a subject matter of issue and the subject matter of issue was pertaining to the challenge regarding Ext.P1. If there is any other issue on the subject matter, the review petitioners are free to take up it in appropriate manner for impounding, only after serving notice on the writ petitioner and after hearing them. Therefore, this review is disposed of with the following clarifications : If based on any other provision, the review petitioners want to impound, necessarily they shall serve a show cause to the writ petitioner within three weeks. Thereafter, after hearing objections, entire exercise shall be completed within a further period of one month.
Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
AV