IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14589 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRINCE JOSEPH, EDEZHATHU HOUSE, KUMBALANGI SOUTH P.O., KOCHIN-7. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOCHI, PIN 682001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT, TRANS POWER SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT, D.T.C. OFFICE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULM. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, RTO OFFICE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 5. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER R.T.O. OFFICER, MATTANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 14589 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that the tax liability fixed on the petitioner in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL 7 AB 2705 by the departmental authorities is not at all correct or proper, particularly when the petitioner was not in a position to operate the vehicle and necessary 'G' forms were submitted by him for the period in question. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, with specific reference Ext.P3 report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector submits, that the factual position as aforesaid has been endorsed as correct by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, stating that the vehicle was not put on road from 01.02.2007 to 31.01.2009. It is the further case of the petitioner that, though the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 Revision Petition before the second respondent, the same is kept pending for long, while coercive steps are being taken against the petitioner for realisation of amount stated as due. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P4 Revision Petition was filed before the second respondent/Commissioner is not correct at all. The 'Heading' shows that Ext.P4 was filed before the WPC NO.14589/2009 2 Deputy Commissioner, Transport, Ernakulam, who is the third respondent and not the revisional authority under the statute. The learned Government Pleader however submits that, if a proper revision petition is filed by the petitioner before the second respondent, the same could very well be looked into on the basis of the actual facts and figures. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper that the petitioner be given an opportunity to pursue the statutory remedy by way of revision and accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file a proper revision petition before the second respondent within two weeks from today. On such an event, the same shall be considered by the second respondent, also taking note of the contents of Ext.P6 report submitted by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law 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 a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that, all the coercive steps taken against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till final orders are passed by the second respondent, if the Revision Petition is filed on time as aforesaid. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc