Thrissur Fashion Jewellery vs Intelligence Officer-Ii on 20 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34192 of 2008(U)


1. THRISSUR FASHION JEWELLERY, PANDALAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER-II,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

3. TAHSILDAR, ADOOR.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :20/11/2008

 O R D E R
                         K. M. JOSEPH, J.
                  --------------------------------------
                  W.P.C. NO. 34192 OF 2008 U
                  --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 20th November, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. It is an order passed by the

first respondent Intelligence Officer, imposing penalty on the

petitioner. Against the same, petitioner has preferred Ext.P4

Revision before the second respondent. In the meantime,

petitioner is faced with revenue recovery proceedings.

2. I heard Shri Deepu Thankan, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The

prayer sought is to quash Ext.P2 and to reconsider the

proceedings after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and the second prayer is to consider Ext.P4 Appeal at

the earliest and to stay the demand notice. Learned counsel for

petitioner would contend that the penalty came to be imposed

without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I

would think that since the petitioner has already preferred a

Revision Petition and it is pending consideration, I need not

WPC.34192/08 U 2

consider the challenge to Ext.P2. The Writ Petition is disposed

of as follows:

If the petitioner prefers an application seeking stay of

Ext.P2 proceedings within one week from today, a decision will

be taken on the same by the second respondent in accordance

with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of filing

the application for stay. Till such time as a decision is taken,

recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be kept in

abeyance.

Petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment before the

second respondent as soon as it is made available to him.

Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

kbk.

// True Copy //

PS to Judge