V.Pradeep vs The Deputy Transport … on 26 July, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23242 of 2010(E)


1. V.PRADEEP, S/O.V.LAKHSMI, AGED 26
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

4. THE TAHSILDAR,

5. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.MADHU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :26/07/2010

 O R D E R
                    P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ..............................................................................
                       W.P.(C) No.23242 OF 2010
               .........................................................................
                       Dated this the 26th July , 2010



                                    J U D G M E N T

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the tax liability

under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act in respect of the vehicle

bearing No.KL.14/D 1403. Being aggrieved of the order passed by

the concerned authority, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal

before the first respondent, which led to Ext. P6 order, whereby the

appeal was dismissed as time barred. Since coercive proceedings

were taken in the meanwhile, the petitioner was constrained to

approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18686 of 2010, leading to

Ext.P9 judgment, whereby the coercive proceedings were ordered to

be kept in abeyance for a period of one month, so as to enable the

petitioner to avail the statutory remedy against Ext.P6 order.

Accordingly, the petitioner preferred Ext.P10 Revision before the 5th

respondent . The petitioner is stated as constrained to approach this

Court again because of non-consideration of Ext.P11 interlocutory

application for stay and further steps being pursued by the

W.P.(C) No.23242 OF 2010

2

concerned authority notwithstanding the pendency of the Revision

Petition and interlocutory application for stay.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the 5th respondent

is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext..P10

Revision, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible at any

rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the

judgment.. Till such orders are passed on Ext.P10, all further

proceedings pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8 shall be kept in abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk