IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23598 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SOBHANA SANKARA PILLAI, PANAKKAL MADOM, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM- 691 001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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