IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13889 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED, 21,PATULLOS ROAD,CHENNAI -600002, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, K.V.N.SURESH, BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JACOB SEBASTIAN,S/O.CHACKO DEVASSIA, ARUPUZHIKARA HOUSE, OTTALOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY) MYLAPORE-TRIPLICANE,CHENNAI - 28. 3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI. 5. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE-II,ERNAKULAM. 6. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010 ALONG WITH W.P(C) NO.13890 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ------------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.13889/2010 & 13890/2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the same in both the cases; who is mainly challenging the steps for realisation of the amount stated as due under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act in respect of the stage carriage vehicle Nos.KL-06-7066 and KL-06-7166. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the assessing authority had already been subjected to challenge by filing appeal before the fifth respondent, which however did not turn to be fruitful and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order, which in turn has been subjected to challenge before this Court. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the facts and figures and the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is still left with an efficacious and alternate remedy by way of 'Revision' before the Transport Commissioner and that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the said remedy. This being the position, this Court relegates the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy W.P(C) Nos.13889/2010 & 13890/2010 2 before the concerned authority. 5. Taking note of the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the on going coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the alleged dues, which comes to more than Rs.5 lakhs, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs within one week; on which event, the recovery proceedings now being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner is permitted to avail the statutory remedy by way of revision before the Transport Commissioner and if any such revision is filing within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the concerned authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the revision petition. It is made clear that further recovery will be subject to the orders to be passed by the revisional authority as above and also subject to the condition to be satisfied by the petitioner as mentioned herein before. The Writ Petitions are disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE