IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29125 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PERINGOTTUKARA CITS LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMAM APARTMENT, KALLINGAL LINE, THIRUVAMBADI, TRICHUR -22, REPRESENTED BYITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-ND NARAYANAN, FORMERLY PERINGOTTUKARA FINANCE AND INV BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (COMMERCIAL TAXES), IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA. 3. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.29125 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a licensed Money Lender. On the allegation that petitioner had charged excess interest from one of the loanees, Exhibit-P1 order was passed by the 1st respondent, under Section 18D of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/- for collecting excess interest , with a further direction to forfeit the excess collection to the tune of Rs.27,138/-. Aggrieved by Exhibit-P1, petitioner preferred Exhibit-P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent, the competent authority under Section 16B of the Money Lenders Act. For some strange reason, the appellate authority proposed to treat the appeal as a revision and then proposed to reject the same on the premise that he is not the revisional authority. This is done as per Exhibit-P4 order and the same has been challenged in the writ petition. Exhibit-P4 is patently unsustainable. W.P ( C) No.29125 of 2008 2 Petitioner did not invoke the revisional powers of the competent authority under Section 20A of the Act. Petitioner invoked the appellate powers under Section 16B of the Act. It is difficult to discern any reason as to why the second respondent treated the appeal as a revision and proceeded to treat the same as not maintainable. Accordingly, Exhibit-P4 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to take back Exhibit-P2 on file and dispose of the same on merits, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.29125 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.29125 of 2008 4