IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37446 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S. ANITHA, W/O. SUKUMARAN, SANTHOSH NIVAS, KULAMVETTIVILA, NEDUMAN, NEDUMANGAD, KALLAYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT, TRANS TOWER, SOUTH ZONE, VAZHUTHCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R.T.O OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R.T.O OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SMT.SUDHADEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 38256 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.37446 & 38256 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, it is stated that the petitioner is the registered owner of a contract carriage bearing registration No.KL- 01 U 2407. It is stated in WP(C) No.37446/08 that following an accident, that took place on 04/03/2003, the petitioner had filed G- Form in respect of the vehicle. It is stated that on 19/10/2008, a demand notice was issued by the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax mentioned therein. It is stated that, thereafter another notice was issued on 29/07/2008 informing the petitioner that revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated for recovery of the tax. The petitioner submits that against the said demand, he filed Ext.P6 appeal before the 1st respondent, and in this writ petition, the prayer made is that the appeal should be disposed of and that in the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent should be directed to test the vehicle on receiving current tax that is due. WP(C) No.38256/2008 was filed complaining that in the meanwhile, the vehicle has been seized by the authorities. WP(C) Nos.37446 & 38256/2008 -2- 2. It is seen that in respect of the same issue, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) No.22046/2006. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 29/08/2006 directing that the appeal that was filed by the petitioner against the order of the RTO, Nedumangad be disposed of. 3. If as stated in the judgment in WP(C) No.22046/2006, the petitioner had filed an appeal and the appeal was considered by the appellate authority, the petitioner could not have again filed Ext.P6 appeal. 4. Admittedly, even as on date, tax remains due and if that be so, the respondents cannot be faulted for the recovery steps that are now proposed. For the same reason, the seizure of the vehicle as complained in WP(C) No.38256/2008 also cannot be faulted. 5. At any rate, the petitioner, having suppressed the filing of WP(C) No.22046/2006, is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court. These writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg