High Court Kerala High Court

A.J.Joseph vs The Secretary on 24 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
A.J.Joseph vs The Secretary on 24 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34007 of 2010(A)


1. A.J.JOSEPH, ALUNKAL HOUSE, ANICKAD
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.I.DINESH MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :24/11/2010

 O R D E R
                         C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
           - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   W.P.(C)No. 34007 OF 2010
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

        Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010


                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a registered owner of stage

carriage bearing registration No. KL-5 L 30. He has

submitted Ext.P7 application before the respondent

requesting for a clearance certificate. However, the grievance

of the petitioner is that the respondent is not considering

Ext.P7 and insisting for clearance of tax arrears in respect of

the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-5 L 30, the vehicle

which he was operating on the route Kumali – Konnakkad.

Evidently, the petitioner has submitted an application for

replacing of the said vehicle and after consideration, the same

was granted as per Ext.P4. The contention of the petitioner is

that since the application for replacement has been sanctioned

the aforesaid liabilities should be endorsed in the new vehicle

KL-5 AB 3666. In fact, for that purpose he has submitted

Ext.P7 application. To buttress his contentions the petitioner

is relying on Ext.P8 judgment.

WPC.34007/2010
: 2 :

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader. Considering the fact

that Ext.P7 application for clearance certificate has been

submitted before the respondent and it is still pending I do not

think it necessary to consider the contentions on merits at this

stage. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P7 application,

expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of 2 weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in accordance with

law. The respondent shall also consider the applicability of

Ext.P8 judgment for deciding the issue involved in Ext.P7.

Sd/-

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

jma

// True copy //

P.S. to Judge