IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13669 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PADMAKUMARI, W/O.RAJAPPAN ASARI, AGED 48 YEARS, T.C.12/33-A, NELLIKONAM MELE VEEDU, NELLIYODE, THIRUVALLOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, REVENUE RECOVERY, TAHSILDAR OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. R.T.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 13669 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : i. The Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, in nature of Certiorari, call for records leading to Ext. P5 and quash the same. ii. The Hon'ble High Court be further pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, in nature of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to stop further proceedings leading to Ext. P5. iii. The Hon'ble High Court be further pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, in nature of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to collect balance three installments granted to the petitioner by the second respondent as per Ext. P2. And iv. The Hon'ble High Court be pleased to grant such other just and equitable orders and further reliefs as deemed fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The admitted case of the petitioner is that, there was some default in respect of the tax liability under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, for the period from 1.7.2004 to 30.09.2005. The liability in this regard was permitted to be cleared by way of 'four' equal monthly installments by the second respondent, as per the order No. 19939/09 dated 22.8.2005, specifying the dates of prospective installments. The W.P. (C) No. 13669 of 2010 : 2 : first installment of Rs. 10,875/- was to be satisfied on or before 24.8.2005 and the remaining 3 installments were to be satisfied on or before 24.9.2005, 24.10.05 and 24.11.05 respectively. It is also conceded by the petitioner that, the petitioner satisfied the first installment on 24.8.2005, but immediately thereafter the petitioner had dismantled the above vehicle, allegedly with notice to the second respondent. It was thereafter that the petitioner was required to remit Rs.88,843/- with 5 % interest and collection charges on or before 31.10.2009, with respect to remaining 3 installments and it was in connection with the steps to realize the said amount, that the property of the petitioner was sought to be proceeded against, which hence is under challenge. 3.The sum and substance of the contentions as discernible from relief No.3 of the Writ Petition is that the petitioner might be permitted to clear the three installments as ordered by the second respondent and to confine the liability to that extent. The second respondent has filed statement pointing out the actual facts and figures in the light of the relative documents produced as Annexure R2 (a) and R2 (b). The learned Government Pleader submits that, the liability is not at all disputed from the part of the petitioner and further that the petitioner W.P. (C) No. 13669 of 2010 : 3 : had not submitted any 'G' form, claiming for exemption for the period in question. The vehicle concerned was admittedly dismantled and no prior sanction was obtained in this regard. In the said circumstances, the steps taken by the respondent so as to realize the outstanding arrears is stated as perfectly within the four walls of the law and not assailable under any circumstances. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that that, there is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the contentions taken from the part of the petitioner. Hence no interference is called for. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made from the part of the petitioner that the petitioner is not in a position to remit the entire amount in lump sum, the petitioner is permitted to save his property, by satisfying the liability by way of reasonable installments. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to satisfy the liability by way of '8' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be paid on or before the 10th of July, 2010; to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in effecting the installments as W.P. (C) No. 13669 of 2010 : 4 : above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of. . P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd