IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16684 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.K.EMIL, AGED 37 S/O.LEELA KUNJUKUNJU, BALYAPPADATH, 14/427 THAIKKATTUKARA PO, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANGER, BANK OF INDIA NORTH PARUR, (PARUR MAIN ROAD BRANCH ERNAKULAM) BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16684 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Ist respondent to accept the road tax for the quarter which commenced on 1-4-2010 to 30-6- 2010 in respect of stage carriage KL- 07/BB.3972 owned by the petitioner without being incluence by any objection from the 2nd respondent forthwith. ii) to issue such other writ, direction or order as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and the petitioner may pray from time to time. iii) to award the petitioner the costs of this proceedings. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first respondent is refusing to accept the road tax, in respect of the stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL- 7/BB.3972 of the petitioner, for the quarter commencing from 1.4.2010 to 30.6.2010, merely on the objection raised by the W.P.(C) No.16684 of 2010 2 financier, who is the second respondent herein, as borne by Ext.P5 communication issued by the said respondent. The learned counsel submits that the objection raised by the financier with regard to the payment or acceptance of tax is not liable to be held as sustainable, as the financier does not have any role or say in this regard, but for the fact that 'No Objection Certificate' of the financier may be necessary for the purpose of 'renewal' of the permit. It is also stated that the case of the petitioner is not for renewal of the permit, but to remit tax for the quarter. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent, as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. 4. Considering the limited nature of the relief prayed for and since nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court as to the vested right of the second respondent to object the acceptance of the tax, with reference to the relevant W.P.(C) No.16684 of 2010 3 provisions of law or binding judicial precedents, this Court finds that the prayer made by the petitioner is quite proper and sustainable. 5. In the above circumstances, the first respondent is directed to accept the road tax in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KL-7/BB.3972, for the quarter commencing from 1.4.2010 to 30.6.2010, on condition that the petitioner satisfies all the requirements as prescribed in this regard. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE. nj.