IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12648 of 2007(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. P.K.MOHAMMED, GENERAL MERCHANT, KALPAKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. N.SULAIMAN, N.S.CHICKEN AGENCY, KOTTAPPURAM, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. P.M.ASHRAF THANGAL, PROPRIETOR, KALPAKA CHICKEN AGENCY, PUTHANATHANI, PUNNATHALA P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), KVAT SPECIAL CIRCLE, TIRUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.12648/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.50/06 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.53/06 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12648 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition in 2007 challenging Ext.P3 order of the 3rd respondent, Deputy Commissioner (General), Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby he has ordered that the purchase value of chicken imported from outside the State is fixed at Rs.40/- per kilogram. The value of chicken is almost double now. As such Ext.P3 is no longer relevant for any purpose. If the respondents have issued any fresh order, the petitioner has to challenge that order appropriately. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. In such writ petition, the petitioner is free to take all the contentions, which the petitioner has taken in this writ petition. I make it clear that I have not considered the writ petition on merits. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd