IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30340 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEW VIJAYA PAPER & STATIONERY CC NO.40/3553, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31 (REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER WILLIAM C. S.) BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERICIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-II, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMRCIAL TAXES, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30340 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Against Ext.P5 order of cancellation of registration, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P6(a) is an application for stay filed along with the appeal. Eventhough the petitioner had filed Ext.P6(b) application seeking out of turn hearing of the appeal the 2nd respondent is not considering and disposing the appeals, is the complaint of the petitioner. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P5 order it is revealed that the registration issued to the dealer is cancelled for the reason that the owner of the premises, wherein the petitioner is conducting business, has not given consent in writing for running the business therein, and that the petitioner had obtained registration on misrepresentation of facts. According to the petitioner the building in question is owned by 4 persons in co- ownership, and consent was obtained from 3 co-owners and the dispute is raised only by one among the co-owners. Therefore it cannot be alleged that the registration was obtained by misrepresentation of any facts. W.P.(C).30340/09-J 2 3. However, the matter is now pending consideration before the appellate authority in appeal. Therefore I am not proposing to look into the merits of the contentions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the appeal. 4. In the result the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 appeal and to pass orders thereon after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Operation of Ext.P5 order is directed to be kept in abeyance till orders are passed on Ext.P6 appeal by the 2nd respondent as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb