IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18259 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MOHAMMED @ KUNHANI, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, PULIYAKUTH HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (TAXATION OFFICER), MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679322. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18259 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE KL- 07/AC 1634. EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE KL-07/AC 1634. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. C5 KL 07/AC 1634/08/M DATED 21.07.2010 ISSUED BYT HE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.C5.KL 07/AC 1634/2010/M DATED 21.07.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6.8.2010. EXT.P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.C5/7823/2010 DATED 24.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 3.3.2011. EXT.P8 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 15.6.2011 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION OF THIS HON'BLE COURT REPORTED IN 2010 (4) KLT 848. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. Kp/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18259 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges an order of the 1st respondent demanding arrears of motor vehicle tax. According to the petitioner, the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Shiju v. Regional Transport Officer [2010 (4) KLT 848]. It is not disputed before me that against the impugned order, the petitioner has a right of appeal. I am of opinion that the question as to whether the issue is covered by the above decision also can be canvassed in the appeal. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd