HEMALATHA K. Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, who claims to be the owner of a tempo traveller vehicle with fixed seats, is aggrieved by the alleged attempt of the 2nd respondent -Joint Regional Transport Commissioner, Vadakkanchery, Thrissur, to demand higher rate of tax, which is contended to be against the provisions of Ext.P3 circular dated 10.3.2014 issued by the Transport Commissioner of the Government of Kerala. It is the case of the petitioner that the provisions of Ext.P3 circular issued by the Transport Commissioner of the Government of Kerala are binding on the respondent officials concerned. According to the petitioner, there are other vehicles of the same make that has paid the ordinary rate of tax applicable to vehicles with fixed seats that cannot be moved backward or forward like the vehicle of the petitioner. The new tax for movable seats is now fixed at Rs. 12,000/ - (Rs. 1,000/ - per seat), it is averred. The petitioner has made representations before the respondent authorities concerned and that they have failed to take into consideration Exts.P3 and P4 and are demanding higher rate of tax. Ext.P4 is said to be the tax receipt pertaining to similar vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his representations to the respondent authorities have not been fruitful and the petitioner is not getting justice from the authorities and, therefore, it is averred that the petitioner is constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court through this Petition. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has instituted this Writ Petition with the following prayers:

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.Sanjay and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent is duty bound to take a decision on the representation in the light of the relevant aspects governing the field. Accordingly, it is directed that the 2nd respondent -Joint Regional Transport Commissioner, who shall immediately take up for consideration Ext.P5 representation dated 21.4.2014 and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall pass necessary orders on that representation after taking into account the aspects mentioned in Ext.P3 circular and also after adverting to the action taken pertaining to a vehicle, which is claimed to be similar, as reflected in Ext.P4 series. Necessary orders on the representation shall be passed by the 2nd respondent within an outer time limit of two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. It has also come to the notice of the Court that this Court as per the order dated 31.3.2014 in W.P.(C).No. 8446/2014 and connected cases has, inter alia, directed as follows: