High Court Kerala High Court

S. Harimurali vs The State Of Kerala on 14 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
S. Harimurali vs The State Of Kerala on 14 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1741 of 2005()


1. S. HARIMURALI, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R),

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :14/09/2007

 O R D E R
                       H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.
                       ----------------------------------------------
                              W.A.No.1741 of 2005-E
                       ----------------------------------------------
                   Dated, this the 14th day of September, 2007

                                     JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu,C.J.

This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.(C).No.7842 of 2005 dated 11th March, 2005. The learned Single

Judge has rejected the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches

on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court nearly after ten years

from the date of impugned orders.

(2) The facts in brief are, that the petitioner is a dealer registered

under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“Act” for

short). Orders of assessments were passed against the petitioner in the year

1996 for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 under Sections

17(3) and 17(4) of the Act respectively. It is not the case of the petitioner that

those assessment orders were not served on him.

(3) Petitioner, for the first time, has questioned the aforesaid

assessment orders in a petition filed in the year 2005. Nowhere in the petition

the petitioner has explained the reasons for approaching the Court nearly after

ten years from the date of passing and service of the impugned orders.

(4) The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration that the

discretionary and extra ordinary reliefs cannot be granted to a person who has

slept over his rights, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. The

reasoning and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge are in

consonance with the law declared by the apex Court in several cases. In that

W.A.No.1741of 2005-E – 2 –

view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders

passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal requires to be

rejected and it is rejected.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice

K.T.Sankaran
Judge
vku/-