IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29215 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- VIJAYAN P.M. S/O. MADHAVAN, AGED 47, PALAKKUZHY HOUSE, VADAYAMPADY P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERY. 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 29215 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage. According to the petitioner, it has met with an accident, damaged and still at the workshop. According to the petitioner, he submitted G Form for the period ending 31.12.2007 on 1.10.2007. For the period from 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008, he did not submit the G Form in time. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 seeking condonation of delay for not submitting the G Form for the period from 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008. But he was now complaining of hasty steps on the basis of Exts.P5 and P6 without passing orders on Ext.P4. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. As far as Ext.P4 relating to the period from 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008 is concerned, no provision is pointed out, under which the petitioner can file G Form beyond the appointed time. Ext.P4 can only be held to be not maintainable. 4. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that actually petitioner had been served with demand notice for October, 2007, which means that there was proper demand and Exts.P5 and P6 demanding WPC.29215/2008. 2 the amount is purely consequential to the lawful demand. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is only liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for instalments to pay off the amount. I feel that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire amount due in four equal monthly instalments. Accordingly, while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner, it is ordered that the petitioner is permitted to pay the entire amount to be paid in four equal monthly instalments, first of which shall be payable on or before 31.10.2008 and the subsequent instalments to be paid on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. If the petitioner defaults payment of any single instalment, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and it is open to the respondents to proceed with the recovery. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb