IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37137 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.A.YOUSUF, S/O. ABDUL WAHAB, AGED 61 YEARS, SHIBIN HOUSE, OPP. K.S.E.B. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE REGIONAL JOINT R.T.O., KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (ARREARS COLLECTION), KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P(C) No. 37137 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging revenue recovery proceedings pursued by the respondents seeking to realize the liability in respect of the arrears of tax payable, pertaining to the vehicle bearing No.KL.11/L 8662, under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation) Act, invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner having found it very difficult to pay the tax and also taking note of the condition of the vehicle, had caused to dismantle the vehicle on 25th September, 2007 and that the matter was intimated to the second respondent then and there, and as such, the liability could not have been mulcted on the shoulders of the petitioner under any circumstances. 2. The learned Government Pleader with reference to the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent submits that W.P(C) No. 37137 OF 2009 2 Ext.P1 application stated as submitted by the petitioner had actually not been filed before the second respondent and that no intimation was ever served as to the dismantling of the vehicle nor had the petitioner obtained any permission in this regard. It is also stated that if a request is made for cancellation of registration, the demand notice can be reviewed and withdrawn, if it is found genuine 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P5 before the second respondent and that the petitioner will be satisfied, if appropriate directions are given to the second respondent to have it considered and finalized; adding that the petitioner will produce all requisite materials to substantiate his contentions. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on or before 15.02.2010, subject to which Ext. P5 shall be considered and finalized by the second respondent, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a W.P(C) No. 37137 OF 2009 3 period of two months thereafter. Subject to the condition imposed by this Court, the revenue recovery proceedings being pursued against the petitioner shall also stand stayed; till appropriate orders are passed as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk