IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1336 of 2008(E) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24196/2004 Dated 29/05/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- C.S.SIVAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, CHAMACHARUKUDIYIL HOUSE, EAST MARADI. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. DEPUTY THAHSILDAR,MUVATTUPUZHA 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU. 5. R.T.O. MUVATTUPUZHA. 6. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ROVING CHECK POST, COIMBATURE-641018. 7. MUJEEB REHMAN, MAMASSERY ILLATH HOUSE, NATTICA, CHAVAKKAD,TRICHUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.1336 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.24196 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008. ORDER Heard counsel for the review petitioner and Government Pleader. This court turned down the challenge against recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-7J 8386 for the reason that on records petitioner continued as a registered owner and there was no proof of the vehicle having been in Government custody as claimed by the petitioner. However, now counsel for the review petitioner has relied on SRO 877/1975 which provides for exemption from motor vehicle tax for vehicles retained in the custody of Government Department except on account of arrears of tax. Counsel submitted that the statement in the judgment that the vehicle was claimed to be in the custody of the Sales Tax Department is incorrect. On the other hand, vehicle was in the custody of the Forest Department, the 6th respondent in the W.P.(C). Counsel has relied on counter affidavit filed by the Forest Official confirming the claim of the petitioner. In the circumstances, Review Petition is disposed of by modifying the judgment directing the R.T.O. to consider petitioner's claim for exemption under SRO 2 877/1975 for the period in question and pass orders after verifying the records and after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from date of production of copy of this order. If recovery is not effected so far, there will be direction to the respondents to withhold recovery for another six weeks. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms