Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
C.H.Muhammed Kunhi vs The Asst.Commissioner Of … on 28 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2830 of 2010(C)



1. C.H.MUHAMMED KUNHI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIALTAXES
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.C.JAMES

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :28/01/2010

 O R D E R
                P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                   W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2010
              =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
           Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010

                            JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Exts.P1, P5 and P8 orders, the petitioner has

approached the 1st respondent by filing Exts.P3, P6 and P9 appeals

along with Exts.P4, P7 and P10 applications for stay. It is stated that

the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P11 notice informing him that the

date of hearing of the appeals scheduled to be held tomorrow. The

grievance of the petitioner is that it is without any reference to the

pendency of the said proceedings, Ext.P15 notice has been issued

and coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act have been

pursued by the respondents, which is to cause much loss and

hardship to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that Ext.P15 notice issued under section 49(2) of the Revenue

Recovery Act is wrong and illegal, in so far as there is no

compliance of the statutory requirement. The learned counsel also

W.P.(C) No. 2830/2010 2

submits that Ext.P15 notice was signed by the officer concerned

only on 29-12-2009 and the same was served through the Village

Officer, Kasaragod only on 19-1-2010, while the sale is scheduled

on 29-1-2010. This shows that the statutory requirement to serve

notice of 30 days under section 49(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act

has not been complied with and as such, the sale scheduled to be

held tomorrow cannot be taken to a logical conclusion, to be in

conformity in accordance with law.

4. After hearing both sides, particularly taking note of the

fact that the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the

impugned order are pending consideration before the 1st

respondent and that Ext.P11 notice has been issued informing the

date of hearing scheduled to be held tomorrow, this Court finds it

fit and proper to have the matter disposed of giving appropriate

direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeals.

5. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and

pass appropriate orders on Exts.P3, P6 and P9 appeals, in

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within

one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

However, it is made clear that till such final orders are passed

W.P.(C) No. 2830/2010 3

thereon, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P15 shall be kept in

abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE

mn.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.176 seconds.