IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 781 of 2003()
1. CLARA,
... Petitioner
2. TITUS, S/O. CLARA,
Vs
1. YASODA,
... Respondent
2. RAJAN,
3. JOHNSON,
4. BABU RAJAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
6. S.NAGAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.HARIKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :13/08/2008
O R D E R
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C).No. 5209 of 2009(U)
#1. ROY PURATHUKAREN, 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMAS AND CENTRAL
3. MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA (P) LTD.,
! For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
^ For Respondent :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
% Dated :17/02/2009
: O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
————————-
W.P.(C.) No.5209 of 2009
———————————
Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner submits that he is a physically handicapped
person and that his disability is 45%.
2. Ext.P1 is a scheme announced by the Government of
India providing for duty concession in respect of Cars, that have
been suitably designed to be driven by physically handicapped
persons. According to the petitioner, by availing of the benefit of
Ext.P1, he wanted to buy a Mercedes Benz C-Class automatic
transmission vehicle. Therefore, he made Ext.P2 application to the
1st respondent enclosing an affidavit and a certificate issued by the
3rd respondent. It is stated that a medical certificate was also
enclosed to prove his physical disability. Although, the application
was made in October, 2008 final orders have not been passed
thereon. Therefore, he pursued the matter by filing representations,
but, however, those representations remain without any response. It
is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed.
3. As is seen from Ext.P2 and the certificate produced, what
WP(C) No.5209/2009
-2-
the petitioner claims is the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme for supply of
car designed to be driven by physically handicapped customers on
concessional rate of excise duty. For that the petitioner has made a
claim before the authorities for the benefit of Ext.P1. Therefore, it
is for the 1st respondent to take a decision on the claim made.
4. Since a decision on Ext.P2 has not been taken so far, I
direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 in the light of the
documents produced by the petitioner and pass final orders
thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment,
along with a copy of this writ petition.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg