The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- “i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing respondents 4 and 5 to consider and dispose of the Appeals No.233/08, 234/08 and 235/08 and Revision Petition Nos. 687(13)/2008, 687(14)/2008, 688(15)/2008 against the assessment orders for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 in view of the fact that the petitioner has already remitted the deficit Kerala Legal Benefit Fund within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. The main point of dispute was with regard to the liability to satisfy the additional court fee payable towards Kerala Legal Benefit Fund in terms of the relevant provisions of law so as to entertain the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner, on better advice, has decided to satisfy the requirement and accordingly, the defect has already been cured and the due amount has been satisfied on 16.11.2014. He further submitted that the defect having been cured, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a specified time.
4. The relief sought for is vehemently opposed by the learned Government Pleader pointing out that the matter has already been considered by this Court leading to Ext.P3 judgment. The impugned orders were set aside giving one more opportunity to the petitioner to have the issues decided on merits by the concerned authority, subject to specific terms. Paragraph 2 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to remit the deficit Kerala Legal Benefit Fund to have a disposal of the revision petitions and appeals on merits. I therefore quash Exts.P14 and P15 orders and remit the same to the file of the fifth respondent accordingly. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a further sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards the dues within a period of one month from today.”
5. It is pointed out that, though the petitioner has rectified the defect by effecting the additional court fee as mentioned hereinbefore, the direction given by this Court to deposit a further sum of `5 lakhs within one month is still to be complied with. The petitioner contends that, the said amount has not been deposited, as it was only to have the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the proceedings. This version does not appear to be correct, as discernible from the nature of wordings and circumstances under which the orders have been set aside by this Court is evident from paragraph 2 of the verdict. That apart, the petitioner has not filed any review petition or clarification petition in this regard. On the other hand, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 14902/2013 for extension of time before the very same learned Judge, who passed Ext.P4 order dated 18.11.2013, whereby the time was extended till 15.12.2013. This has not been satisfied till date.
In these circumstances, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to call for interference of this Court. Inference is declined and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE
sj