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.
