IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25393 of 2010(Y)
1. BIJOY.S,S/O.DR.A.SREEDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR(RR)KANAYANNUR TALUK,
3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.DILIP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :19/08/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No. 25393 of 2010-Y
----------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the
revenue recovery proceedings, as borne by Ext.P1, seeking to realize
the amount of Rs.49,140/- with interest and collection charges,
stated as arrears of tax payable under the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KL 02-B 6669,
which in fact has been pursued pursuant to the requisition made by
the RTO, Ernakulam.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is not the
owner of the vehicle mentioned in Ext.P1 and that there is
absolutely no connection whatsoever, which hence is sought to be
intercepted in this Court.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits on instructions that, an obvious mistake has
crept in Ext.P1, while mentioning the number of the vehicle as KL
02-BA 6669 in place of ‘KL 02 B 6669’. It is asserted by the learned
Government Pleader that the vehicle bearing No.KL 02-B 6669
W.P(C) No. 25393 of 2010-Y 2
belongs to the petitioner and that the petitioner is a defaulter in
respect of the tax arrears, which in turn is sought to be realized by
the RTO, Ernakulam.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes
that, the vehicle bearing No.KL 02-B 6669 actually belongs to the
petitioner and that the petitioner happened to approach this Court
only under the impression that the liability to be satisfied by the
owner of the other vehicle is being sought to be realized from the
petitioner and that the actual liability, if any, in respect of the
vehicle bearing No.’KL 02 B 6669′ is not intended to be disputed.
The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner might be
permitted to clear the said liability by way of reasonable
instalments, more so since the petitioner has not received any
proper notice in respect of the said vehicle.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the
petitioner could be permitted to clear the liability shown in Ext.P1,
treating the said notice as issued in respect of the vehicle bearing
No.’KL 02 B 6669′; by way of ‘four’ equal monthly instalments, the
first of which shall be effected on or before the 10th of September,
2010; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or
W.P(C) No. 25393 of 2010-Y 3
before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all
further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. It is made
clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying
the due amount as above, it will be open to the respondents, to
proceed with appropriate steps for realisation of the entire amount
in a lump sum.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
ab