IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 19193 of 2004(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.PRADEEP. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UPA LOK AYUKTA, OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P. SIVANANDAN, S/O. PARAMU, SREELATHA MANIDRAM, KUREEPUZHA P.O., PERINADU, KOLLAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 3. J.YESUDAS, S/O.JOSEPH, SHANTI BHAVAN, LAKE DAISHAN NAGAR, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. (R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO. 159/2005 DTD.4.11.05) ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ FOR ADDL.R3 SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 19193/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF LOK AYUKTA DTD.22.5.04. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.19193 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The State of Kerala and the Regional Transport Officer, Kollam, have come up with this writ petition challenging an order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta, purely on technical grounds. The 2nd respondent is the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-12/2007. He paid motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle upto 31.3.2003 For the period from 1.5.2003 to 30.6.2003, he submitted form G declaration to the effect that the vehicle was not used on the roads during the said period. He originally paid tax for that period also and claimed exemption and refund. Since the refund was not sanctioned, the 2nd respondent filed complaint No.330/2004 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta and, by Ext.P1 order, the Lok Ayukta allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners herein to refund the tax paid by the 2nd respondent for the period from 1.5.2003 to 30.6.2003. That order is under challenge. 2. The contention raised by the State is that the Lok Ayukta did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint at all, insofar as they have no powers to enquire into validity of action under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act and no maladministration was proved. 3. I have considered the contentions of both parties. 4. Admittedly the 2nd respondent had filed Form G declaration w.p.c.19193/04 2 for the period from 1.5.2003 to 30.6.2003. There is no case for the petitioners that G form was rejected. If the 2nd respondent has filed G form, the competent officer had a duty to either allow or reject the same. Both had not done in this case. In fact the petitioners have no case that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to exemption from tax for the period in question. Without passing orders on the G form, if the refund is refused, I am of opinion that that would amount to maladministration and, therefore, the Lok Ayukta had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In any event, insofar as the petitioners have no case that the complainant had not submitted G form and he was not entitled to exemption from tax, for the period in question, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners especially since no manifest of justice or no loss of revenue to the State has been pointed out. The learned Government Pleader also refers to a Government order, which requires that not only G form but also a refund application should also be submitted, which is also a pure technical contention, which also, I am not inclined to entertain for the same reasons as above. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.19193/04 3