IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17213 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A.JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, THACHUTHARA HOUSE, KATHRIKADAVU, NEAR CBI OFFICE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.P.K.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 17213 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The prayer of the petitioner is to intercept the coercive steps stated as being pursued by the respondents for realisation of the tax arrears in respect of the Tipper Lorry bearing No. KL 07 BE 6112 belonging to the petitioner and to permit him to discharge the liability by way of six equal monthly instalments. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court with similar prayers in WP(C) 27731/2008 which led to Ext.P3 verdict, whereby the petitioner was permitted to clear the tax arrears, with additional tax, in four equal monthly instalments; making it clear that the first instalment was to be paid on or before 03.10.2008 and the remaining instalments on or before the first working day of the succeeding months. It was also observed therein that, if any default was committed from the part of the petitioner in repaying the amount as above, the petitioner would lose the benefit of the judgment and the respondents could recover the due amount in lump sum. It is pointed out by the respondents that, the petitioner did not honour the commitment to comply with the terms WPC NO.17213/2009 2 contained in Ext.P3 judgment but for filing Ext.P2 representation before the second respondent seeking for further benefit by way of instalments, which in turn is sought to be enforced by filing the present Writ Petition. Obviously, the matter has become final in view of Ext.P3 judgment. There is no case for the petitioner that the said verdict has been sought to be varied or modified in any manner or that the petitioner has sought for enlargement of time. In the said circumstances, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc