IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2130 of 2010(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PADMAVATHY AMMA, AGED 52, W/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, THEKKENADU HOUSE, P.O.THIRUVANIYOOR, CHEMMAMCHERRY, QUILANDY. BY ADVS. MR.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, MR.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (TAXATION),QUILANDY. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ------------------------------- W.P(C) No.2130 of 2010-M ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.24705 of 2009 with regard to the alleged liability in respect of the contract carriage bearing No.KL-7/C 3792 for the period from 1.10.2007 to 30.6.2009, stated as due under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. 2. After hearing both the sides, the Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment, directing the respondents to consider the petitions submitted by the petitioner and to take a final decision after giving an opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the said verdict Ext.P5 order has been passed by the respondent, holding that the claim of the petitioner is not correct or sustainable and accordingly directing him to remit the tax, to the extent as specified therein, which in turn has been challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the relevant provisions of law and the instructions, submits that the claim for payment of 'idle tax' instead of 'actual tax' liability is not applicable to the case in hand. Such course is stated permissible W.P(C) No.2130 of 2010-M 2 only in respect of 'stage carriage' and not in the case of 'contract carriage' as involved in the present case. The above submission made by the learned Government Pleader is sought to be rebutted from the part of the petitioners; asserting that the charging provision under Section 3 of the Taxation Act does not provide any such distinction. However, this Court does not propose to go into the relative merits or demerits, as the petitioner is very much stated as having an effective alternative remedy. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under the statute, if so advised. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, all further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. It is also made clear that if any appeal is filed by the petitioner within one month as above, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and finalised accordingly after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab