Sobhana Sankara Pillai vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 13 August, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23598 of 2010(Y)


1. SOBHANA SANKARA PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.PREMCHAND

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :13/08/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No. 23598 OF 2010
              .........................................................................
                     Dated this the 13th August , 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is mainly stated as aggrieved of Exts. P3

and P4 notices whereby substantial amounts have been

demanded by way of arrears of tax under the Kerala Motor

Vehicles Taxation Act in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL-

2/U-1177 belonging to the petitioner, which according to him, is

not liable to be satisfied under any circumstances, stating that

he had submitted the requisite ‘G’ Forms for the period in

question.

2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents submits that the matter has already been

considered. The factual position is not controverted from the

part of the respondents. The learned Government Pleader also

submits that the petitioner is very much having an alternate

remedy, if at all aggrieved in any manner, by challenging the

impugned order passed by the RTO by approaching the Deputy

W.P.(C) No. 23598 OF 2010

2

Transport Commissioner as provided under the relevant

provisions of law.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner may be permitted to avail the statutory remedy and

that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court only

because of the recovery proceedings pursued in the meanwhile.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

petitioner is relegated to avail the statutory remedy by

approaching the Deputy Transport Commissioner with regard to

the cause of action projected in the Writ Petition. So as to

enable the petitioner to pursue such steps, all further

proceedings pursuant to Exts. P3 and P4 shall be kept in

abeyance for a period of one month.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk