IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33944 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 58, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, NAVAS MANZIL, THOLICODU, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R.), NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, THOLICODU, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. JOSHY, ROOMWAL INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., ROONWELL MASION, NO.17, KALATHI PILLAI STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 33944 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court challenging the coercive proceedings being initiated and proceeded against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent on 27.05.2006, despite the fact that the matter has attained finality to the extent as specified in the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.12.2006 in Writ Appeal 585/2005 as evident from Ext.P4. 2. The gist of the factual position is that, the liability in respect of the arrears of motor vehicles tax as demanded vide Ext.P2 from the petitioner in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL/13A 226 was challenged in OP 25796/2000. But on losing the battle, Writ Appeal 585/2005 was filed, which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment, whereby the 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter on the basis of the evidence to be furnished by the petitioner/appellant as to the transfer of the vehicle and the actual liability involved. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, despite the clear mandate in Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner has not been served with any notice in furtherance to Ext.P4, whereas the proceedings which were pending consideration before the WP(C) No.33944/2009 2 2nd respondent got finalized on 27.05.2006 vide Ext.P5, i.e., prior to passing of the final verdict by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal and hence that Ext.P5 has rather become otiose and is not liable to be enforced. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is found that Ext.P5 cannot have any existence in view of the specific observations contained in Ext.P4 judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court subsequent to passing of Ext.P5 order. This being the position, Ext.P5 is set aside and it is made clear that, this will not bar the way of the respondents in proceeding further, in accordance with the directions in the above judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc