IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35163 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P. GIRISH KUMAR, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, 1/1832, PUTHIYAVEETTIL, P.O.WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.O.D.SIVADAS MR.K.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35163 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 memo issued by the respondent demanding motor vehicle tax with respect to vehicle bearing No.KRD-8253 due for the periods from 1.4.2005 to 31.8.2006 and from 1.9.2006 to 31.3.2009, respectively at the rates applicable to stage carriages and Non- transport Vehicles. According to the petitioner the vehicle had completed 15 years in the year 1997 and since the petitioner could not use the vehicle thereafter, a substitute vehicle was put to operation on the route in which the petitioner was plying the vehicle in question. Ext.P1 is copy of the application put in by the petitioner seeking replacement of the vehicle. Therefore it is contended that the petitioner is liable for payment of tax only at the rates applicable to the non-transport vehicles, for the entire period during which the demand is made. 2. As per Section 23 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act the petitioner has got an effective remedy by way of appeal against Ext.P3. Since the dispute need be decided based on the questions as to whether the vehicle was in operation W.P.(C).35163/09-M 2 during the relevant time, I am of the opinion that the matter need adjudication on evaluating factual aspects. In view of the alternate remedy available, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to avail such remedy. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file statutory appeal against Ext.P3 before the competent authority, the Deputy Transport Commissioner. If any such appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be treated as an appeal validly constituted within the time limit prescribed. The appellate authority shall consider and dispose of such appeal if filed, as early as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb