IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17528 of 2008(J) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MINI, W/O.D.S.DILEEP, AASWINAM, VELANKONAM, CHEMMARUTHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERENMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 17528 OF 2008 J -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner's husband was conducting business of furnitures through SIDCO. Her husband faced with financial difficulties which resulted in closing down the business. The Firm fell into arrears of sales tax. Ext.P1 is the show cause notice as to why the petitioner's husband should not be arrested. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 application to review the warrant issued as per Ext.P1 and to permit her to defend the case for and on behalf of her husband. According to petitioner, her husband is of unsound mind and mental disorder due to the closure of the business unit and she has produced records to show the same. The District Collector by Ext.P3 requested the Managing Director of SIDCO to furnish his remarks. While so, the police has came to the house of the petitioner in search of her husband, informing that a warrant of arrest is pending against him in connection with WPC. 17528/08 J 2 Ext.P1 show cause notice. Petitioner seeks to quash the warrant and to consider Ext.P2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. In such circumstances, I feel that there should be a direction to consider Ext.P2 by the first respondent. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P2 in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till a decision is taken as aforesaid, the warrant of arrest already issued will not be enforced. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge