IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28049 of 2009(A)
1. M.A.SCARIA, MATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :07/10/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28049 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing
Regn:No:KL-3/A-1744 which was being plied on the route
Mathamba – Meloram on the strength of a valid permit till
21.8.2008. According to the petitioner the vehicle has crossed
15 years during November 2007 and the fitness of the vehicle
expired on 26.1.2006. Therefore the vehicle was taken to
Tamilnadu and a substitute vehicle was operating on the
strength of the permit in the route in question. Eventhough the
petitioner claimed exemption from payment of tax on producing
‘G’ form for the period from 1.1.2006 onwards, the exemption
was not allowed, because the authority concerned has not
obtained verification report from the R.T.O., within the
jurisdiction of whom the vehicle was kept in the State of
Tamilnadu. It is submitted that an appeal filed against rejection
of ‘G’ form was also not successful.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that on rejection of
claim for exemption the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2
application before the respondent seeking for effecting tax
W.P.(C).28049/09-A 2
endorsement at the rate of Non-Transport Vehicles for the period
from 1.1.06, during when the vehicle in question was not
operated on the strength of any stage carriage permit.
According to the petitioner the respondent had requested the
R.T.O., Periyakulam, Tamilnadu to obtain and forward a
certificate of verification report with respect to the vehicle which
is alleged to have been garraged within the jurisdiction of that
authority. But since the verification report was not received the
respondent is not taking any decision on Ext.P2.
3. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am
of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing
the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application
at the earliest. Hence the respondent is directed to consider and
pass orders on Ext.P2 application as early as possible, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb