IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16102 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOHN RAPHY, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, PADOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS COURT ON 26.5.2010, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PETITIONER. TODAY ALSO THE POSITION IS NOT DIFFERENT AND THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION. HENCE THE WRIT PETITION IS DISMISED FOR DEFAULT. SD/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16102 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The correctness and sustainability of Ext.P9 order, whereby the statutory Revision Petition filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent has been rejected without giving an opportunity of hearing is under challenge. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the rejection of the Revision Petition is in view of the specific 'time limit' prescribed under Section 24 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, read with the relevant Rule, which provides a maximum period of 90 days. In the instant case, the petitioner chose to approach Revisional Authority only after expiry of the time limit and this being the position, no merit was considered, in view of the statutory bar, leading to issuance of Ext.P9, which is within the four walls of the law and not assailable under any circumstance. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the contention raised by the respondents is not correct or sustainable and that the petitioner had approached the Revisional Authority well within time and since no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, the position could not be substantiated before the said authority, which hence 2 WP(C) No. 16102/2010 is sought to be intercepted by this Court. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that whether the contention raised by the petitioner is correct or not is a matter to be looked into by the revisional authority, which can be pursued only after giving an opportunity of hearing. Since the impugned order has admittedly been passed without any such opportunity of hearing, it has necessarily to go and the Revisional Authority is to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the Revision Petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with all the requisite materials including the originals of the impugned order before the 1st respondent within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment for taking further steps. It is made clear that, the coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc