IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19367 of 2010(U)
1. C.S.LAKSHMANAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA
... Respondent
2. INSPECITNG ASST.COMMISSIONER
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 19367 of 2010 U
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the
first respondent for the reason that the statement of objections
filed from the part of the petitioner, though was taken note of in the
opening paragraph, has not been discussed any where in the
order, before arriving at the inference. This being the position, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 cannot be
treated as a ‘speaking order’ and hence, the same requires
reconsideration.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. Going by the materials on record, it is clear that the
filing of objection dated 03-03-2010 has been referred to in the
opening paragraph of the impugned order passed by the first
respondent. But, since the effect/consequence has not been
discussed anywhere, this Court finds that the matter requires to be
reconsidered by the first respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set
aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter,
after hearing the petitioner and pass a ‘speaking order’ thereon, in
WPC.19367/2010
: 2 :
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within a period of ‘six weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE)
aks