Vinod vs Assistant Motor Vehicle … on 30 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5137 of 2009(J)


1. VINOD, S/O.SREEDHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIYYUR POLICE

3. THE JOINT R.T.O, GURUVAYUR.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.SAGEER

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN

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

 Dated :30/06/2009

 O R D E R
                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ........................................................................
                    W.P.(C) No. 5137 OF 2009
             .........................................................................
                     Dated this the 30               th June, 2009


                                 J U D G M E N T

The case of the petitioner is to have permission to remit the

tax without producing the original of the R.C.Book before the

departmental authorities, stating that the original is left with the

financier. It was in the said circumstances, the financier of the

vehicle was ordered to be impleaded as an additional respondent;

pursuant to which, the concerned Company was impleaded as

the Additional Fifth respondent. Thereafter, an interim order was

passed by this Court on 23.06.2009 directing the Additional Fifth

respondent to produce the original R.C. Book before the

departmental authorities; simultaneously directing the petitioner

to appear before the said authorities on 29.06.2009 and to remit

the tax arrears .

2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Addl.5th

respondent submits that even though the Addl. 5th respondent

W.P.(C) No. 5137 OF 2009

2

was present before the departmental authorities with the original

of the R.C. Book, the petitioner did not turn up to remit the tax

arrears.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he

had passed on the instruction to the petitioner and that the

outcome is not known to the learned Counsel.

Considering the sequence of events, it appears that the

petitioner is no more interested with the cause of action

projected in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly

dismissed.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk