AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri. P.U. Shailajan, the learned Standing Counsel for the review petitioner, as well as Sri. K. Rakesh, the learned counsel for the respondents herein.
The writ petition is presented by the proprietor of a Small Scale Industrial Unit at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Karakkad, seeking to challenge Ext.P8 issued by the SIDCO, directing remittance of Rs.5,15,406/-. This Court, with reference to the judgment at Ext.P1 dated 04.08.1999, found that there cannot be any challenge against Ext.P8 at the instance of the petitioner. However, the petitioner sought for a reasonable time to satisfy the amount demanded pursuant to Ext.P8 alone. It is on that basis that 60 days’ time was granted to the petitioner to satisfy the amount demanded pursuant to Ext.P8.
Through the review petition, it is pointed out by the petitioner therein that the benefit pursuant to Ext.P1 requires to be considered with reference to the order dated 26.10.1999 passed in that writ petition (O.P. No.13361 of 1998), as per which the petitioner therein who is the writ petitioner in this petition was directed to comply with the directions issued by SIDCO within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, clarifying that if the directions are not complied with, benefit of the judgment would not be eligible to the petitioner anymore. Therefore, the review petitioner is justified in contending that the impact of Ext.P2 ought to have been taken into account.
Sri. K. Rakeh, the learned counsel for the respondents, would however point out that it is only subsequently on 07.06.2022, Ext.P8 is issued by SIDCO, directing payment of Rs.5,15,406/-. True, the learned counsel is justified in contending that even on the face of Ext.P2 order referred to above in the earlier writ petition, SIDCO chose to issue Ext.P8 to the writ petitioner, directing payment of Rs.5,15,406/-. It is further clarified by Sri. Rakesh that even the afore amount has been satisfied by him.
Even on the face of the afore, this Court notices that the communication at Ext.P8 directs payment of Rs.5,15,406/- as the value as on 04.10.1999. Therefore, SIDCO’s entitlement for interest for the subsequent period requires to be considered. This was also not pointed out while disposing of the writ petition.
In view of the afore, this Court is of the opinion that the review petition requires to be allowed, restoring the writ petition.
Hence, this review petition would stand allowed, recalling the judgment dated 25.05.2026 in W.P.(C) No.3939 of 2023.
W.P.(C) No.3939 of 2023 is restored to files.
Post W.P.(C) No.3939 of 2023 for consideration on 30.09.2026.