IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31605 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE PEARL VIEW HOTELS PVT.LTD., KODUVALLY, THALASSERY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SAVITHRI PREMACHANDRAN, D/O.MANNAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUKUNTH NIVAS, THALASSERY. BY ADV. MR. C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, THALASSERY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, CALICUT. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. K. SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 31605 OF 2006 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The challenge in this Writ Petition is with regard to the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner during the pendency of the statutory appeal before the second respondent. 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 29.11.2006, the following order was passed. “Admit. G.P. takes notice for the respondent. If Ext. P3 is received and pending, the second respondent shall consider and pass orders on it, in accordance with law, within two weeks from today. Further proceedings, to attach the movables of the petitioner, pursuant to Ext. P4, will remain in abeyance, for a period of three weeks from today.” Thereafter, on 04.01.2006, it was pointed out by the Government Pleader, that no I.A for stay has been filed by the petitioner before the second respondent. 3. In any view of the matter, the matter was not brought up for extending the interim order, which stands expired. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, there is no representation as well. It appears that the W.P. (C) No. 31605 of 2006 2 petitioner is no more interested with the cause of action projected in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd