IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28042 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.RADHA, KOLATHUR PARAMBA, WESTHILL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28042 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The writ petition is filed seeking directions to the 3rd respondent for consideration and disposal of Ext.P2 revision petition and the stay petition filed therewith, on an early basis and to keep in abeyance realisation of tax in dispute, till disposal of the revision petition. Against demand of Motor Vehicle Tax pertaining to vehicle bearing Regn: No:KRM-3506 owned by the petitioner for the periods from 1.4.2004 to 30.9.2007, the petitioner had preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent. The said appeal was dismissed, as evidenced by Ext.P1 order. Against Ext.P1 the petitioner had preferred a revision before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner had also filed a stay petition along with. Complaint of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the revision petition, now steps are being initiated for realisation of the amount of tax under demand. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the vehicle in question had crossed 15 years age and the petitioner had substituted another vehicle for plying on the strength of the stage carriage permit. Therefore it is contended that the vehicle W.P.(C).28042/09-A 2 could not be put to use and hence there is no liability for payment of tax. It is further submitted that if at all, the petitioner will be liable for paying tax only at the rate applicable to Non-Transport Vehicles. 2. Having considered facts and circumstances and contentions of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing early disposal of Ext.P2 revision petition by the 3rd respondent. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps for realisation of the amounts of Motor Vehicle Tax in dispute, till the 3rd respondent passes orders on the revision petition. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb