IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14736 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SABU XAVIER, KUNNEL HOUSE, CHERUKODE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.14736 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle. Vehicle tax is to be paid at the stage carriage rate under Clause 7(a)(ii) of the Schedule attached to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. According to the petitioner, he is liable to pay vehicle tax at the stage carriage rate only for the period other than the months February, March, April, May and June, 2006. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. Prior to the revenue recovery proceedings, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had directed the field officers to verify whether the petitioner is liable to pay vehice tax as aforesaid for the months February, March, April, May and June, 2006. A report is furnished by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Mavelikkara stating that the vehicle was not operated and it had no permit for the above period. While so, the petitioner obtained Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P2 modified order and the petitioner is paying the instalments as directed, is the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the report of the Joint RTO that there was no permit for the months February, March, April, May and June, 2006, the petitioner by Ext.P3 WPC.14736/2008. 2 requested the respondent to allow the vehicle tax to be paid at Non-transport vehicle rate for the above period. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was granted instalment facility by the Government and also by this court and extension was also granted and it was not paid. Having perused Exts.P1 and P2, judgment and order respectively, I would think that this writ petition cannot be maintained by the petitioner and if the petitioner has a complaint based on the report of the Joint RTO, it may be open to him to seek appropriate remedy as is available in law, and this writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb