IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25958 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.C.MUNEEBA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.ISMAIL, "NAZEEBAS", PANNIYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID, ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJID. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THALASSERY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH BABU, ADV. SRI. K. PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25958/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the Ist day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P4, revenue recovery notices issued to the petitioner under Sections 7 and 34 of the Act. As is evident from the pleadings, the amount sought to be realised is the licence fee payable and according to the standing counsel, the total liability is Rs.8,46,268/-, though the revenue recovery notice show much lesser amount. 2. Since, the liability of the petitioner cannot be disputed, I see absolutely no merit in the objection raised. If that be so, the amount due is liable to be paid by the petitioner. However, having regard to the financial constraints highlighted in the writ petition, I am inclined to direct that the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the WP(c).No.25958/08 2 amount due to the respondents in 5 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30th of September, 2008 and subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 30th of every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, coercive action initiated shall be deferred and in case default is committed, respondent will be free to continue the proceedings already initiated, without further notice. 3. True, the petitioner has a case that the movables were sold and that the amount realised is far disproportionate to the actual value of the items sold. I am not in a position to appreciate the contention that the value of the movables realised is disproportionate. If at all the petitioner had such a complaint, the petitioner should have challenged the same at the appropriate time. This has not been done and it is too late for the petitioner to raise this contention. Be that as it may, if the petitioner has a case that, the value realised and the security deposited WP(c).No.25958/08 3 have not been adjusted towards the the liability, it is open to the petitioner to move the authorities with that request, in which case, I have no doubt that such a representation will be taken note of. Further, that does not mean that the petitioner should delay the payment of instalments. She should start the payment as directed and representation if any received shall be considered in the meanwhile. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.25958/08 4