IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23242 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.PRADEEP, S/O.V.LAKHSMI, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLOTT HOUSE, KOLATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLATHUR VILLAGE, KOLATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KASARAGOD. 5. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.23242 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th July , 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the tax liability under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KL.14/D 1403. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the concerned authority, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the first respondent, which led to Ext. P6 order, whereby the appeal was dismissed as time barred. Since coercive proceedings were taken in the meanwhile, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18686 of 2010, leading to Ext.P9 judgment, whereby the coercive proceedings were ordered to be kept in abeyance for a period of one month, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy against Ext.P6 order. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred Ext.P10 Revision before the 5th respondent . The petitioner is stated as constrained to approach this Court again because of non-consideration of Ext.P11 interlocutory application for stay and further steps being pursued by the W.P.(C) No.23242 OF 2010 2 concerned authority notwithstanding the pendency of the Revision Petition and interlocutory application for stay. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the 5th respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext..P10 Revision, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.. Till such orders are passed on Ext.P10, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk