IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2342 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MUHAMMED HAJI, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAHAMMED, NELLOLI HOUSE, KALAPAKANCHERI.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALAPPAKANCHERY, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. N.ABDUL SALIM, AL-IHSAN, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 2342 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a 'septuagenarian' having crossed the age of 70 years, is before this Court, aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondents 1 to 3 as per Ext. P1 demand notice, proceeding against the movables and immovables owned, possessed and enjoyed by the petitioner, in the attempt to realize the amount stated as due from the 4th respondent, who is stated as residing elsewhere. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the properties owned and enjoyed by the petitioner, as above, are not liable to be proceeded against, in respect of the amount stated as recoverable from the 4th respondent towards arrears of sales tax. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 representation before the first respondent , which is stated as still to be acted upon. W.P.(C) No. 2342 OF 2010 2 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who entered appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Considering the relief proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue any notice to the 4th respondent, who is stated as the actual defaulter, in so far as the relief prayed for is only to direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 representation. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P2, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the respondents shall not enforce Ext.P1 against the personal property of the petitioner, obviously for the reason that the same has been issued in the name of the fourth respondent and that the respondents 1 to 3 are at liberty to proceed with further steps, continuing the same against the 4th respondent and W.P.(C) No. 2342 OF 2010 3 his properties. The Writ Petition is disposed of P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk