The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P10 order passed by the 1st respondent, whereby, the appeal preferred against Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent stands rejected.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, registered ownership of the vehicle bearing No.KL-07/F4911, was transferred to the 3rd respondent, along with another vehicle bearing No.KL-07/T8622 as per Ext.P1 sale agreement. Pursuant to the steps taken to cause change of name, the ownership in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KL-07/F4911 now stands transferred to the name of the 3rd respondent, as borne by Ext.P2. But, when the tax liability in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KL 07 T 8622 was sought to be recovered from the petitioner, the same was sought to be challenged, ultimately leading to Ext.P10 order, wherein an observation has been made to the effect that the 3rd respondent appeared and disputed the alleged transfer of ownership and possession of that vehicle to his name. It is in the said W.P.(C) No.30092 of 2014 2 circumstances that, the appeal has been rejected and that the petitioner has been required to satisfy the liability.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the petitioner is still having statutory remedy by way of revision before the Transport Commissioner.
In the said circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to avail the statutory remedy by way of revision before the competent authority. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, by filing revision and also by way of Interlocutory Application for stay, the coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp