IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2011/1ST ASHADAH 1933 WP(C).No. 29730 of 2004 (L) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- P.K.SURESH BABU, S/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, M/S.VARMA TRAVELS, PADMAVILASOM ROAD, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.29730/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.20424/95 IN OP NO.11424/05 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 1/11/1997 OF THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/11/1997 OF THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TRIVANDRUM. P4 COPY OF THE DEMAND MEMO DATED 9/7/01 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P5 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26/4/04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P6 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26/4/04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT P9 COPY OF THE APPEAL ALONG WITH STAY PETITION DATED 27/5/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/8/2004 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT P11 COPY OF THE REVISIN PETITION ALONG WITH STAY PETITION SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 27/9/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT P12 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27/9/04 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT P13 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27/9/2004 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT P14 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.11424/1995 DATED 18/12/1995 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P15 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10/11/04 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VANCHIYOOR P16 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10/11/04 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANCHIYOOR P17 COPY OF THE DEMAND DATED 24/8/2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ sts P.S.TO.JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.29730 of 2004 ---------------------------- Dated 22nd June, 2011 JUDGMENT An elaborate narration of facts is uncalled in view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition. The petitioner's father was the registered owner and also permit holder of two vehicles bearing registration Nos. KL-01/C 6174 and KL-01/A 1719. On his death, the petitioner applied for their transfer of ownership and also for transfer of permit. The said applications were allowed. Later, the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01/A 1719 was replaced by vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01/L 3177, as is obvious from Ext.P2. Earlier, the Government of Kerala by Finance Act 1994 amended the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 in regard to item No.4(1)(f) of the Schedule and the rate of quarterly tax in respect of the contract carriage vehicles operating inter-State was enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- with effect from 11.4.1994. That amendment was challenged before this Court by a number of contract carriage vehicle operators including the late father of the petitioner. The petitioner's late father filed O.P.No.11424 of 1995 and Ext.P1 is the order of stay passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.20424 of 1995 in the said original petition. Ultimately, the said original petition as also the other original petitions challenging WP(C).No.29730/2004 2 the amendment were dismissed. Appeals were preferred against the said judgment. As per the judgment in W.A.No.1180 of 1995 and connected appeals a Division Bench of this Court reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the original petitions challenging the amendment were dismissed. The State took up the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court and that ultimately culminated in a decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Aravind Ramakant (1999 (3) KLT 115(SC)). The Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench but with certain specific directions. The relevant portion carrying such directions viz. paragraph 11 of the judgment in State of Kerala v. Aravind Ramakant (supra) reads thus:- “11. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, the petitioners-respondents had obtained a stay of collection of tax in respect of the contract carriage vehicles involved in the writ petitions before the High Court. While dismissing their petitions, the learned Single Judge directed that the petitioners should pay the balance tax due up to 30th September, 1995 in equal instalments. From records we are unable to find whether there was any interim order stay during the pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench. But it is clear from the records of this Court that the stay sought for by the State in these appeals was rejected. Taking into consideration the fact that at least after the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court WP(C).No.29730/2004 3 delivered on 11.12.1995, there has been no stay or any other interim order in favour of the State, we are of the opinion that it would be just and fair that in spite of the fact that we have allowed the appeal of the State, the State should not demand the enhanced tax from the respondents which may have become due by virtue of this judgment for the period between the date of judgment of the Division Bench ie., 11.12.1995 and today, that is, the date of the judgment of this Court. The appeals are accordingly allowed with the above directions, upholding the validity of the notification impugned herein, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in W.A.No.1180/95 and connected matters. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that since the vehicles involved in this case were involved in the earlier batch of writ petitions that ultimately culminated in the decision reported in 1999 (3) KLT 115 (SC) (supra) he is also entitled to the benefits of paragraph 11 of the said judgment. In the meanwhile, Exts.P5 and P6 demand notices were issued by the first respondent in respect of the vehicles bearing registration Nos.KL-01/C 6174 and KL-01/L 3177 respectively. On receipt of Exts.P5 and P6 the petitioner has submitted Exts.P7 and P8 representations. At the same time, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 appeal against Exts.P5 and P6 under section 23 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 before the second respondent. Ext.P10 is WP(C).No.29730/2004 4 the order passed by the second respondent in the said appeal. As per Ext.P10 order, the second respondent held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits flowing from paragraph 11 of the judgment in State of Kerala v. Aravind Ramakant (supra) and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P10, Ext.P11 revision petition under section 24 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was filed before the third respondent. It is still pending consideration before the revisional authority. Pending the said revision petition revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and demand notices under section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act were served on the petitioner. Exts.P12 and P13 are the demand notices so issued. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. While admitting this writ petition, this Court granted a conditional stay of Exts.P12 and P13. The contention of the petitioner is that the condition in the said interim order of stay was complied with and in compliance with the said direction Rs.1,00,000/- was already deposited. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that so far no order has been passed on Ext.P11 revision petition and WP(C).No.29730/2004 5 communicated to the petitioner. In view of the said position obtained in this case, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as hereunder:- The Revisional Authority shall take up Ext.P11 revision Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law especially, taking into account paragraph 11 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Aravind Ramakant (supra), while considering the legality of Ext.P10 order. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that before passing orders on Ext.P11 revision petition the petitioner shall be afforded with an opportunity of being heard. It is made clear that all the contentions are left open. The interim order passed by this Court on 11.10.2004 shall continue to remain in force till orders are passed on Ext.P11 revision petition and communicated to the petitioner. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS