IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34103 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- MARY ANTONY, W/O.LATE AUGUSTINE ANTONY, CHERIYAKAKRAMCHERY HOUSE, FR.MANUAL ROAD, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 17. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM, PIN - 682 011. 5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 34103 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE TIPPER BEARING NO.KL07AT 2478 DATED 15.06.2004. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE TIPPER BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-07-AT-2478 DATED 02.09.2004. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2011 EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 OF THE RR ACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2011. EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM NO.10 OF RR ACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2011. EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S.SIRI JAGAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)NO.34103 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December 2011 --------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax allegedly due from the petitioner to the 5th respondent. Petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has not used the vehicle for the period in question and further the vehicle has subsequently been dismantled also. Therefore, the demand is unsustainable, is the contention is raised. But I am of opinion that the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the demand in an appeal as provided in the Kerala Motor Vechicle Taxation Act. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition without prejudice to the right to the petitioner to challenge the demand in an appeal as provided under the Act. In order to enable the petitioner to file an appeal and move for interim orders, further proceedings pursuant to the Exts.P4 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE STU 2 3