IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3390 of 2011(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- GOPALANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 59, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KOROTH KAIPPURATH VEEDU, P.C. BRIDGE P.O., NARIKKUNI, PARANOORAMSOM, PUNOOR PADAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN- 673 525. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VEHICLE TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 007. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-20. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3390 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is the registered owner of a Bus bearing No.KL-11/P-3587, which was plying as a stage carriage on the strength of a permit till March 2008. According to the petitioner, the vehicle met with serious mechanical defects and could not be put to use thereafter. The petitioner also became seriously ill and was undergoing prolonged treatment. It is contended that on the particular route, temporary permits were granted to other operators. The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to demand for payment of Motor Vehicles Tax for different period from 1.4.2008 onwards. When Ext.P1 memo was issued demanding payment of tax for the period from 1.4.2008 to 30.6.2008, the petitioner approached this court in WP(C). No.3526/09. In Ext.P2 judgment this court directed 2nd respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner seeking exemption from payment of tax. Subsequently Ext.P3 memo was also issued demanding tax W.P.(C).3390/11 -2- due for the period from 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2008. Eventhough the petitioner filed a civil suit against the demand, the same was subsequently withdrawn. 2. At present the petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 application before the 1st respondent seeking to invoke the provisions contained under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 for exempting the petitioner from payment of tax for the relevant period. It is evident from Ext.P8 acknowledgment that Ext.P7 application has been received by the 1st respondent on 29.10.2010. The petitioner had also submitted Ext.P9 application before the 2nd respondent seeking permission for removal of the vehicle from the present place where it is kept to a workshop, for conducting repairs. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents are not taking any action on the basis of Ext.P7 & P9 applications. Hence the petitioner seeks appropriate direction for consideration and disposal of the matter by the respondents on an early basis. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, I am of the view that it is not necessary for this court to look into merits of the contentions raised as Ext.P7 and P9 are pending consideration and disposal before respondents 1 and 2, respectively. I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will be W.P.(C).3390/11 -3- served if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and take appropriate decision on Ext.P7 and P9 within a time frame. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With respect to request made before the 1st respondent as per Ext.P9, it is directed that an appropriate decision may be taken, if necessary 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. 6. It is made clear that if there is any coercive steps of recovery initiated, the petitioner will be free to approach the appropriate authority seeking to restrain such recovery steps till the disposal of the matter by the respondents as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb