IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 RP.No. 791 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9792/2009 Dated 18/07/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- SAJI GEORGE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, KAVIL HOUSE, 6/21, CHEKKIDIKKADU P.O., PACHA, EDATHUA VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. C.D.RAJEEV, S/O.DAMODARAN, CHIRAKKAPURATH HOUSE, PALLIPURAM, CHERTHALA, PIN-688 524. 3. SHOJU JOSEPH, S/O. JOB, POTTIMATTATHIL HOUSE, PAZHAYAMATTOM, MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 584. 4. SHAJI, S/O. HAMEED, KUZHIMANDAPATHIL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O., POOMALA, THODUPUZHA-685 584. 5. THE MANAGER, SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 027. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, EDATHUA VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 7. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 791/2011 in W.P.(C).No. 9792/2009 ================== Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner seeks review of the judgment in W.P.(C). No.9792/2009 dated 18.7.2011, in which, I directed as follows: “Respondents 1, 6 and 7 shall proceed against the vehicles first and if the amounts realised are not sufficient to cover the arrears of motor vehicle tax due, respondents 1, 6 and 7 shall proceed against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 simultaneously. Till the vehicles are sold, coercive proceedings for recovery of the amount from the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner has complied with the interim orders passed by this Court.” The petitioner now submits that as per the interim order dated 7.6.2010, the petitioner had been directed to pay 40% of the liability. There was delay in payment thereof and, therefore, the 1st respondent is not accepting the 40% as directed in the interim order. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this review petition seeking orders in that regard permitting the petitioner to pay the amount on or before 9.11.2011. 2. I have heard the parties. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to pay 40% of the amount as directed in the order 7.6.2010 on or before 9.11.2011. The review petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- shg S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge - : 2 :- shg S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE