K.P.Mahesh vs The Regional Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7610 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.5668 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER/S:

                K.P.MAHESH, AGED 55 YEARS
                MAHESH MANDIRAM,MARIYATHURUTH.P.O., KOTTAYAM,
                REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, T.C.THOMAS,
                THAKADIYELPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKAD P.O.,
                KOTTAYAM-686 533

                BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/TAXATION OFFICER
                KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002

      2         THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
                CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM, KUNNUMPURAM P.O.,
                ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 021



                SMT. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.5668 OF 2021                 2




                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of March 2021

Heard both sides.

2. As against the assessment order at Ext.P1, the

petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal along with the stay

petition at Ext.P3 which are reportedly pending before the 2 nd

respondent. According to the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, during pendency of the appeal as well as stay petition,

the petitioner is served with Ext.P2 memo demanding dues as

assessed by the Assessment order at Ext.P1. Learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner therefore submits that during

pendency of the stay petition, the memo at Ext.P2 demanding the

dues as arrived at by Ext.P1 be kept in abeyance.

3. Learned Government Pleader opposed the petition.

4. Considering the fact that the assessment order at

Ext.P3 is challenged before the 2 nd respondent and as the said

petition in that appeal is yet to be decided, the petition is disposed

of with the following directions:

The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the stay petition

(Ext.P3) filed in the pending statutory appeal by the petitioner,

after following the due process of law, within a period of six weeks

from the date of communication of this judgment. The petitioner

to cooperate with the 2nd respondent in expeditious disposal of the

stay petition. Till disposal of the stay petition, proceedings in the

memo initiated in pursuant to the Ext.P1 assessment order shall

be kept in abeyance. The petitioner to furnish copy of this

judgment to the concerned respondent for compliance.

Sd/-

                                                 A.M.BADAR
ajt                                                JUDGE





                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1              TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2014

EXHIBIT P2              TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
                        14.01.2021

EXHIBIT P3              COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 04.02.2021 ALONG
                        WITH CHALAN AND STAY PETITION

EXHIBIT P4              TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
                        NO.32836/10 DATED 21.10.2014

EXHIBIT P5              TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.5115/2020
                        DATED 24.2.2020

EXHIBIT P6              ORDER OF THE SECRETARY, RTA, KOTTAYAM DATED

4.12.2020REFUDING TO ISSUE RENEWED PERMIT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN MVARP NO.3/2021 DATED 12.2.2021