IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9573 of 2006(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P. SALIM, SARITHA MANZIL, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, INCHIVILA, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR MR.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE S AME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 9573 of 2006-M ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner approached this Court challenging the coercive steps taken under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the penalty fixed under the KGST Act during the pendency of the revision petitions. 2. During the pendency of the above Writ Petition (which is still to be admitted), the petitioner produced true copies of the interlocutory applications filed before the revisional authority as Exts.P13 and P14 along with I.A.No.5346 of 2006. Simultaneously, the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.5347 of 2006 seeking for a direction to the second respondent/revisional authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P13 and P14 applications and after hearing both sides, this Court passed an interim order dated 6.4.2006, whereby the second respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P13 and P14, if they had been received and pending. The petitioner has not brought any failure on the part of the second respondent in complying with the direction; which W.P(C) No. 9573 of 2006-M 2 means, either the petitioner has obtained the necessary relief by passing appropriate orders in Exts.P13 and P14 or even that the revision petitions filed by him have been got finalised. Though the outcome is not brought to the notice of this Court, it is for the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the revisional authority, if the orders passed by the said authority in the concerned revision petitions have gone against the petitioner in any manner. Since no such plea has been raised after the interim order was passed by this Court on 6.4.2006 and no amendment of the writ petition is sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to keep the writ petition pending any further. In the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the revisional authority in accordance with law, if the petitioner is actually aggrieved in any manner. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab