IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30692 of 2010(J)
1. PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
3. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
4. VILLAGE OFFICER,
5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
6. V.R.AJI DEVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 30692 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The issue involved in this Writ Petition relates to
payment of arrears of motor vehicles tax due with respect
to vehicle No. KL 04 G 9277. According to the petitioner
he was the owner of the vehicle, but it was sold to the 6th
respondent by virtue of agreement dated 09.11.2006. A
demand was raised by the 1st respondent claiming arrears
of tax due for the period from 01.01.2007 to 30.06.2008.
The petitioner had filed appeal against that demand
before the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner,
eventhough the appeal was heard by the 2nd respondent
no orders were issued. Meanwhile fresh demand was
issued as per Ext.P2 claiming payment of tax for the
period from 01.01.2007 to 30.09.2009, which include the
period covered under Ext.P1. The petitioner had
preferred a further appeal before the 2nd respondent
2
WP(C) No. 30692/2010
against Ext.P2 demand. That appeal was dismissed through
Ext.P3. The petitioner had preferred revision against
Ext.P3 order before the 3rd respondent as evidenced from
Ext.P4. It is mentioned that the 3rd respondent had issued
Ext.P5 letter requesting the petitioner to cure some defects
noted on the revision petition. It is stated by learned
counsel for the petitioner that such defects were already
cured and the revision petition now stands registered on the
files of the 3rd respondent. Meanwhile coercive steps of
recovery was initiated pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8. Hence
the petitioner is seeking directions to restrain recovery
steps till disposal of the revision petition by the 3rd
respondent.
2. In a statement filed on behalf of first respondent it
is mentioned that the appeal filed against Ext.P1 demand
was already dismissed by the Deputy Transport
Commissioner as per order dated 01.09.2008, a copy of
which was produced as Annexure R1(a). It is stated that
3
WP(C) No. 30692/2010
Ext.P2 demand was made for realizing tax due for the entire
period including the period which is covered under Ext.P1,
with respect to which the appeal was dismissed. However,
it is admitted that the petitioner had filed revision petition
against Ext.P3 order and as per Ext.P5 the Transport
Commissioner had requested the petitioner to rectify the
defects.
3. Considering pendency of the revision petition
before the Transport Commissioner, I am of the view that
the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the authority
to take expedious decision on the matter.
4. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of
directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P4 revision petition as early as possible, after affording
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
5. Till such time orders are passed by the 3rd
4
WP(C) No. 30692/2010
respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered
under Ext.P2, which is now initiated pursuant to Exts.P7
and P8 notices, shall be kept in abeyance.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc