IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2830 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.H. MUHAMMED KUNHI, PROPRIETOR, BEE BEE FIRE WORKS, KELUGUDDE ROAD, KASARGOD. BY ADV. MR.V.C.JAMES. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (1) KASARGOD. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KASARGOD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V.K.SHAMSUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Exts.P1, P5 and P8 orders, the petitioner has approached the 1st respondent by filing Exts.P3, P6 and P9 appeals along with Exts.P4, P7 and P10 applications for stay. It is stated that the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P11 notice informing him that the date of hearing of the appeals scheduled to be held tomorrow. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is without any reference to the pendency of the said proceedings, Ext.P15 notice has been issued and coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act have been pursued by the respondents, which is to cause much loss and hardship to the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P15 notice issued under section 49(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act is wrong and illegal, in so far as there is no compliance of the statutory requirement. The learned counsel also W.P.(C) No. 2830/2010 2 submits that Ext.P15 notice was signed by the officer concerned only on 29-12-2009 and the same was served through the Village Officer, Kasaragod only on 19-1-2010, while the sale is scheduled on 29-1-2010. This shows that the statutory requirement to serve notice of 30 days under section 49(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act has not been complied with and as such, the sale scheduled to be held tomorrow cannot be taken to a logical conclusion, to be in conformity in accordance with law. 4. After hearing both sides, particularly taking note of the fact that the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order are pending consideration before the 1st respondent and that Ext.P11 notice has been issued informing the date of hearing scheduled to be held tomorrow, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter disposed of giving appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeals. 5. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P3, P6 and P9 appeals, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that till such final orders are passed W.P.(C) No. 2830/2010 3 thereon, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P15 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE mn.