IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5756 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LUKOSE PAULOSE, KIDANGATTIL, CHETHUCODE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 5756 OF 2009 L ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is issued under section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realising amount under the Luxury Tax Act. The petitioner had approached this court earlier and it culminated in Ext.P1 judgment. This court had directed the Tahsildar to pass fresh orders. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 and it is without considering the same Ext.P4 is issued. 3. Learned government pleader, on instructions, submits that it is true that no order has been passed yet. But recovery notice is issued. This is unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed and necessarily a decision must be taken as directed in Ext.P1. Writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks