IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8814 of 2009(V) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- REDBEE ENTERPRISES, TP/2/860A: THRIKKALANGODE P.O., CHERANI, PLYWOOD ROAD, MANJERI:676 123. REPRESENTED BY MANAGIND PARTNER N.USMAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER (ON DEPUTATION), MANJERI. 2. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER OF COM.TAXES, MANJERI. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COM.TAXES, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 8814 OF 2009 V -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Firm. It applied for registration. The application for registration was rejected vide Ext.P6. Prior to that, Ext.P4 notice was issued wherein it is stated that the Door Number which the petitioner intends to be used as Godown, was formerly used as Godown by one Fantasy Sales Corporation, a dealer in identical goods like the petitioner, and that unit is defunct and there are arrears of huge amount. Stating the very same reasons and noting that the petitioner knows who were the tenants who carried business earlier at the premises and it is needless to elaborate any further and finding no strong ground to deviate from the proposal, the application was rejected vide Ext.P6. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. The ground mentioned in the impugned order for refusing registration is not one to be found WPC.8814/09 V 2 either in the Act or the Rules. The fact that the premises proposed to be used as Godown, was one let out to another person, cannot be taken as a ground for refusing registration. At least none is proferred before me. In such circumstances, I feel that this is a fit case where the Writ Court should interfere, as the illegality is palpable. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent to pass fresh orders on the application in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge