IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9419 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.A. JOSEPH, KOLLAMMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, 35/527, ZION, KEERTHINAGAR ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-26. BY ADV. MR.P.SANJAY, SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON, MR.BIJU MEENATTOOR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.9419 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are causing utmost hardship and harassment to the petitioner, by proceeding against the 'movables' of the petitioner, stating that some amount is liable to be paid by the 'son of the petitioner' in connection with a loan transaction with the Bank/financial institution, for which, the son had stood as a surety. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits on the basis of the materials on record and the undisputed pleadings set forth from the part of the petitioner, that the liability of the son of the petitioner was by virtue of having stood as a surety for releasing the goods, which were intercepted/detained while in transit, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit. It is also stated that the concerned Company has subsequently closed down its business. The liability still remains. By virtue of this, steps are being taken against the surety and it is under these circumstances, necessary proceedings have been issued; for W.P(C) No.9419 of 2010-B 2 realisation of the due amount. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transaction as narrated above is not in any way connected with the rights and interests over the property, which was purchased by the petitioner and nobody else. It is revealed that the petitioner has also approached the fourth respondent, by filing Ext.P5 representation, for immediate interference. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the fourth respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 representation, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that till such orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner, all further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab