IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28049 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.SCARIA, MATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURISMOODU, CHENGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28049 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing Regn:No:KL-3/A-1744 which was being plied on the route Mathamba - Meloram on the strength of a valid permit till 21.8.2008. According to the petitioner the vehicle has crossed 15 years during November 2007 and the fitness of the vehicle expired on 26.1.2006. Therefore the vehicle was taken to Tamilnadu and a substitute vehicle was operating on the strength of the permit in the route in question. Eventhough the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of tax on producing 'G' form for the period from 1.1.2006 onwards, the exemption was not allowed, because the authority concerned has not obtained verification report from the R.T.O., within the jurisdiction of whom the vehicle was kept in the State of Tamilnadu. It is submitted that an appeal filed against rejection of 'G' form was also not successful. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that on rejection of claim for exemption the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application before the respondent seeking for effecting tax W.P.(C).28049/09-A 2 endorsement at the rate of Non-Transport Vehicles for the period from 1.1.06, during when the vehicle in question was not operated on the strength of any stage carriage permit. According to the petitioner the respondent had requested the R.T.O., Periyakulam, Tamilnadu to obtain and forward a certificate of verification report with respect to the vehicle which is alleged to have been garraged within the jurisdiction of that authority. But since the verification report was not received the respondent is not taking any decision on Ext.P2. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application at the earliest. Hence the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application as early as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb