IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 34500 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUNIL K.MANOHAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. MANOHARAN, KARAYATHARA HOUSE, POONITHURA P.O. ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, (CENTRAL ZONE-II) ERNAKULAM, 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.34500 of 2009-F ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T With respect to contract carriage vehicles owned by the petitioner bearing registration Nos.KL-7/P 1836, KL7/AF 6692 and KL-7/H 8901, refund of motor vehicles tax was claimed for different periods. According to the petitioner the first respondent has allowed refund with respect to certain periods. But refund of tax so allowed has not so far been effected. 2. The second respondent had filed a detailed statement. In which it is mentioned that with respect to vehicle bearing No.KL7/AF 6692 refund of tax was allowed pertaining to the period of 6/2004 and the refund has already been effected. The claim for refund with respect to the said vehicles for different other periods is pending finalization before the first respondent. It is stated that the first respondent had insisted upon production of the original of the registration certificate for the purpose of processing the application for refund. It is further stated that with respect to some other periods, the applications for refund pertaining to the very same W.P(C) No.34500 of 2009-F 2 vehicles has not been considered since those applications were submitted not within the time stipulated. It is further stated that with respect to the vehicle bearing No.KL-7/P 1836, the application for refund pertaining to the period of 6/2005 stands already sanctioned. With respect to the said vehicle claim for refund for the period of 6/2002 has not been processed for want of production of original of the registration certificate. So also with respect to vehicle bearing No.KL-7/H 8901 the claim for refund for the period of 6/2001 stands already sanctioned. With respect to very same vehicle for the period from 1.6.2002 to 30.7.2002 the refund was not effected for want of production of registration certificate. 3. It is evident from the facts narrated as above that the claim for refund of motor vehicles tax made by the petitioner with respect to three vehicles owned by him has been considered by the first respondent. It is evident that in certain cases, the refund has already been sanctioned, but in certain other cases, the applications are still pending because the petitioner had failed to produce the original of the registration certificate. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had already sold two of the vehicles to some persons in the State of Andra Pradesh and the original of the W.P(C) No.34500 of 2009-F 3 registration certificate could not be produced since the same is not available in the custody of the petitioner. Going by the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is mentioned that insistence for production of original of the registration certificate is on the basis of SRO No.461/2004. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is necessary to observe that with respect to vehicles and periods for which the 1st respondent found that the petitioner is otherwise eligible for refund, orders of refund need be issued and the refund need be effected without insisting for production of original copy of the registration certificate. It is revealed that the matter is pending disposal before the respondents since quite a long time. Hence I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to finalise the matter on an early basis. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on applications, if any submitted by the petitioner seeking refund of the motor vehicles tax with respect to the above said three vehicle,s without insisting for production of original of the registration certificates. The second respondent is also directed W.P(C) No.34500 of 2009-F 4 to effect refund of amounts if any due by virtue of the orders already issued by the first respondent for refund of motor vehicles tax. The needful in this regard shall be done by the 1st respondent at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab