IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17355 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.GIRISH KUMAR, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, 1/1832, PUTHIYAVEETTIL, P.O. WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR. O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT: --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. By GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 17355 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 24th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court, praying for the following reliefs: i. call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction the respondent to grant exemption from payment of tax in respect of stage carriage No. KRD 8253 from 1.4.2005 onwards. iii. issue appropriate writ or direction to levy tax at NTV rate from 1.4.2005 till 31.8.2006 and thereafter grant exemption from payment of tax in respect of KRD 8253. iv. issue such other and further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as per Ext.P1 memo issued in the name of 'Smt. Usha Murali' simultaneously marking a copy to the petitioner, the respondents are proceeding with the coercive steps for realization of the tax arrears in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KRD 8253 and that because of the above, the petitioner is not in a position to get necessary orders in respect of the vehicle already substituted by him, on the basis of the permit stated as got transferred from the name of Smt. Usha Murali. WP (C) No. 17355 of 2009 : 2 : 2. The respondents have filed counter affidavit asserting that the transfer of permit was not endorsed for want of production of current records of the vehicle bearing No. KRD 8253 was still owned by none other than the R.C. Owner, Smt. Usha Murali. It is further pointed out in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that, the permit of the vehicle was valid up to 21.8.2006 and as such, the demand raised by the departmental authorities against the R.C. owner Smt. Usha Murali is perfectly valid and within the four walls of the law. The respondents also assert in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that, the 'G form' had been filed in respect of the said vehicle only upto 31.3.2005, but 'non use +intimation' was never filed by the R.C. owner since 31.3.2005. It is further pointed out that, Ext.P1 memo was issued, not in the name of the petitioner, but only in the name of the R.C. owner of the vehicle i.e. Smt. Usha Murali; since the vehicle was still owned by her. It is also made clear that, a copy of Ext.P1 was forwarded to the petitioner just for intimation, since the petitioner had approached the office of the concerned respondents for getting renewal of the permit and replacement of the vehicle endorsed. 3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said as aggrieved of Ext.P1 memo issued to somebody else and the cause of action projected in the Writ Petition is only premature. No orders are called for. This is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to WP (C) No. 17355 of 2009 : 3 : approach the authorities in accordance with law as and when necessitated. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd