IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34295 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAIJINI JOHN, W/O.JOHN VARGHESE, RESIDING AT MANALEL EBENAZAR, VILAKKUVATTOM P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM- 691 305. BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.C.A.ANOOP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM 691 001. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM 689 695. 3. SUNIL G., PROPRIETOR, SAI PLY WOOD, N.R. COMPOLEX, M.L.A ROAD, PUNALOOR, RESIDING AT UDYANMURUPPEL, MALLIKA, THOTTAYIL P.O, ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN 691 523. 4. MOHAMMED HABEEBULLAH, S/O.SULAIMAN KUNJU, RESIDING AT IBRAHIM MANZIL, VALAKKODE P.O., PUNALOOR, KOLLAM- 691 331. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.34295 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner had purchased certain immovable properties from the 4th respondent, who was a surety with respect to sales tax registration granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps of recovery was initiated against the property in question for realising arrears of sales tax due from the 3rd respondent, which was initiated against the 4th respondent. 2. It is noticed that the 3rd respondent had approached this court in WP(C).No.35789/2010 and this court has disposed of the case on today granting relief directing the appellate authority to consider the accompanying applications filed along with the appeals and till then to restrain the recovery steps. 3. In view of the relief granted in that writ petition the issue involved herein has become infructuous. However it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in case any recovery steps is initiated against the properties in future. WP(C) 34295/2010 2 4. In the result the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to take appropriate legal steps in case any recovery proceedings is pursued against the property in question. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) 34295/2010 3