IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33944 of 2009(K)
1. A.ABDUL RASHEED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R.),
5. VILLAGE OFFICER,
6. JOSHY,
For Petitioner :SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :18/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 33944 of 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the coercive
proceedings being initiated and proceeded against the petitioner
pursuant to Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent on 27.05.2006,
despite the fact that the matter has attained finality to the extent as
specified in the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court on
21.12.2006 in Writ Appeal 585/2005 as evident from Ext.P4.
2. The gist of the factual position is that, the liability in respect
of the arrears of motor vehicles tax as demanded vide Ext.P2 from the
petitioner in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL/13A 226 was
challenged in OP 25796/2000. But on losing the battle, Writ Appeal
585/2005 was filed, which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment, whereby the
3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter on the basis of the
evidence to be furnished by the petitioner/appellant as to the transfer of
the vehicle and the actual liability involved. It is the specific case of the
petitioner that, despite the clear mandate in Ext.P4 judgment, the
petitioner has not been served with any notice in furtherance to Ext.P4,
whereas the proceedings which were pending consideration before the
WP(C) No.33944/2009
2
2nd respondent got finalized on 27.05.2006 vide Ext.P5, i.e., prior to
passing of the final verdict by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal and
hence that Ext.P5 has rather become otiose and is not liable to be
enforced.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is found that
Ext.P5 cannot have any existence in view of the specific observations
contained in Ext.P4 judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court
subsequent to passing of Ext.P5 order. This being the position, Ext.P5 is
set aside and it is made clear that, this will not bar the way of the
respondents in proceeding further, in accordance with the directions in the
above judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc