The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
1) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to endorse the exemption of vehicle tax from stage carriage rate and endorsement of idle tax in the R.C.book of the vehicle KL-11/N 4885 for the period from 01.04.2010 till date as mentioned in Exhibit P3 with immediate effect, as per case law reprted in 2013 (3) KLT page 97 in the case of Mini Dilip and also as per clause 7 of schedule attached to Section 3 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, by conducting an enquiry if need be.
2) to grant such other relief as this Hon'bel Court may deem fit and proper.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 27.10.2014, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean W.P.C.No. 24682 OF 2014 2 hands as his grievance already projected by way of the earlier writ petition filed by him as W.P.(C).No.9354/2013, was considered and disposed of on 04.04.2013, in respect of the tax due from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2013. A copy of the said judgment is placed for consideration of this Court. On going through the judgment, this Court finds that the version of the learned Government Pleader is fully correct and that filing of the said writ petition has never been disclosed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
3. The petitioner has filed an affidavit before this Court, in support of the writ petition, stating that he has not filed any earlier writ petition seeking similar and identical relief for the same subject matter. The Apex Court has made it clear on many an occasion that, casual or false submissions from the part of the parties concerned will poison the stream of justice and as such, it has to be dealt with seriously. It is also stated that such course virtually amounts to contempt of court as well, to be proceeded against, in accordance with law, as per the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Hariyana and others [1995 (3) SCC 757].
W.P.C.No. 24682 OF 2014 3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier writ petition was submitted through another lawyer, which fact was not disclosed to him and seeks for permission to withdraw the writ petition. The fact remains that even though the earlier writ petition was filed through another lawyer, it was obligatory for the petitioner to have disclosed it to the present lawyer as well.
In the above circumstances, the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition is rejected. The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Kerala State Mediation and Reconciliation Centre within one month. It will be open to the Registrar General to issue certificate of the beneficiary for realisation of the due amount, if it is not cleared on time.
SD/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE jv