IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 445 of 2008(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------- NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, KRISHNATH VEEDU, PADAYANARKULANGARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. JOINT R.T.O., KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, RADHA MANDIRAM, PANGODEMURI, PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE, PUTHOOR DESOM, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 445 OF 2008 C ===================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage KL 2 A 9579. According to the petitioner, he had sold the vehicle to the 4th respondent and on the basis of an agreement between the parties and the 4th respondent has undertaken to discharge the tax liability. However, the 4th respondent had committed default and tax remains unpaid as a result of which revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated by Ext.P5. It is challenging Ext.P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Petitioner has also made reference to Exts.P2 and P3 Form G fled by the petitioner claiming exemption from tax for the period from 1.04.2004 to 30.09.2004. It is complained that recovery proceedings are initiated by Ext.P5 including the period covered by Exts. P2 and P3 as well. WPC 445/08 :2 : 3. There are two hurdles in the way of the petitioner. First one is that the very fact that recovery has been initiated covering the period of Exts. P2 and P3 itself indicates that the G forms filed by the petitioner have been rejected. If that be so, he ought to have challenged the same at the appropriate time and that having not done, it is not open to the petitioner to complain on the demand raised rejecting Exts.P2 and P3. That apart, the fact that the petitioner still continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle also remains undisputed. If that be so, there cannot be any sustainable objection to the recovery steps that are initiated 4. Despite the legal position is as above, I feel that the petitioner should be permitted to discharge the liability in instalments having regard to the financial constraints that are highlighted before me. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the petitioner will be permitted to pay the amount that is due from him in terms of Ext.P5 in four equal monthly instalments, first of which will be payable on the 15th of January, 2008 and the WPC 445/08 :3 : subsequent instalments payable on the 15th of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the instalment as above, the recovery proceedings initiated by Ext.P5 will stand deferred and in case any default is committed, it will be open to the respondents to continue the recovery proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp