IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18781 of 2009(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- LENI KURIAKOSE, MADATHIL HOUSE PUTHUPARIYARAM PO, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, DEPT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THODUPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR) THODUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 18781 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P1 order imposing the penalty which however was challenged by filing Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 petition to condone the delay in filing the same. Eventhough the petitioner has also filed Ext.P4 petition for stay, the proceedings are stated as left ignored, while the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P5 and P6 notices, which hence is sought to be interfered by this Court. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that Ext.P2 appeal and the I.A.s are obviously dated 02.07.2009, i.e., filed just on the previous day of approaching this Court. This being the position, absolutely no blame can be put on the part of the respondents, submits the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is true that the petitioner has been simply sleeping over the arm chair, despite the service of the impugned order way back in February, 2009. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not challenge the proceedings on time, because of some adverse WPC NO.18781/2009 2 circumstances and unforeseen events in connection with the business. After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the matter can be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the memorandum of appeal and on the petitions for condoning the delay and for stay. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 appeal as well as the petitions and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. However, it is made clear that, till such appropriate orders are passed on the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal and also on the petition for stay, all coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P5 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc