IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7918 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD., NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, MENON PARA ROAD, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD-678 621, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS). BY MR.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 7918 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the alleged callous inaction on the part of the revisional authority in finalising Exts.P2 to P4 revision petitions or in at least dealing with the interlocutory applications already preferred for stay. During the pendency of the said revision petitions, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.2434 of 2010 with regard to the grievance in resorting to the coercive steps taken by the concerned respondents, without finalising the statutory appeals preferred by the petitioner in respect of a different cause of action. After hearing, appropriate direction was given by this Court vide Ext.P6 judgment with regard to the appeal proceedings and the recovery; simultaneously observing that the cause of action in respect of 'revision petitions' was not the subject matter of the said Writ Petition and that, if the petitioner was aggrieved of in any manner, it was for the petitioner to move the revisional authority in connection with the cause of action projected in the revision petitions. The petitioner is now before this Court W.P(C) No. 7918 of 2010-L 2 contending that, because of the inaction on the part of the revisional authority in considering the interlocutory applications for stay, serious loss and hardships are being caused because of the garnishee proceedings. 2. Heard Sri.K.P.Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.Vinod Chandran, the learned Special Government Pleader (taxes) appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.3609 of 2010 before this Court today, producing some additional documents as Exts.P9, P9(a), P10 and P10(a) respectively and the coercive steps are sought to be intercepted during the pendency of the said Writ Petition. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already complied with the condition imposed by this Court vide Ext.P6 judgment and has deposited a sum of Rs.4 crores. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the second respondent, who is the revisional authority, to consider and finalise the revision petitions in accordance with law, at the earliest. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider and finalise Exts.P2 to P4 revision W.P(C) No. 7918 of 2010-L 3 petitions after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which exercise shall be pursued and finalised as expeditiously as possible. However, it is made clear that till such final orders are passed on Exts.P2 to P4, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P9, P9(a), P10 and P10(a) produced along with I.A.No.3609 of 2010 before this Court shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab