IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 1190 of 2008(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.M. DASAN, SAHAKARANA TIMBERS AND SAW MILL, CHENGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER-II, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 4TH CIRCLE, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. MANOJ CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 1190 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P6 to P8 and to direct the respondents to produce the relevant register seized from the petitioner and mentioned at Sl.No.13 of Ext.P1 and return the same. 2. When the writ petition was heard, the main prayer urged by the counsel for the petitioner was to direct the respondents to return the documents at Sl.No.13 of Ext.P1 receipt, which was prepared at the time when the documents enumerated therein were seized. In so far as this claim of the petitioner is concerned, it is seen from Annexure R(b) produced along with the statement filed by the respondents that the petitioner himself has acknowledged receipt of these documents from the respondents. This receipt was issued by the petitioner on 17/9/2002. On the basis of this receipt, the respondents would contend that the entire documents have been returned to the petitioner. It is true that one of the items in Ext.R(b) is struck off. But it is not clear as to whether what is struck off are the records that are now claimed by the petitioner. 3. The definite stand of the respondents in the statement is that all documents that were seized from the petitioner under Ext.P1 have been WPC 1190/08 :2 : returned. The respondents would also invite my attention to Ext.P3 order passed by this court in WP(C) No.1698/04 where also, this court had occasion to deal with this very complaint of the petitioner. In that judgment, the stand of the respondents that the documents were returned have been taken note of by this court. With the materials available, the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the petitioner has not received the documents from the respondents or that respondents are declining to return the same. In view of this, I cannot grant the relief sought for. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp