Kerala High Court
E.K.Mohamed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2009
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18529 of 2009(I)
1. E.K.MOHAMED IQBAL,S/O.BEERANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM
3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA)
4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (AA)
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 18529 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging the fast track assessment made by the second respondent under the relevant provisions of law as borne by Ext.P4 to P9, on many a ground. The petitioner, though is very much aware of the availability of the statutory remedy and the course to be pursued has chosen to approach this Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of law; which has been answered against him by the decision rendered by this Court in Viani Paper Mills Vs. Fast Track Team (2008 (2) KLT 511).
2. However, it is to be noted that Exts.P4 to P9 orders, have been passed by the fast track team consisting of only 3 members, which will not satisfy the requirement in view of the statutory prescription and the holding that such assessment has to be made by a team consisting of 4 members and also bearing the signature of all the 4 members, who are in the team. This being the position, Ext.P4 to P9 orders, obviously having been passed by the team consisting of three members cannot have any existence under the the relevant provisions of law.
3. In the above circumstances, Exts. P4 to P9 are set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and the judicial precedents WP (C) No. 18529 of 2009 : 2 : on the point. Proceedings as above shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the impugned orders have already been set aside, the petitioner shall not be proceeded against, by way of coercive steps, unless and until fresh orders are passed by the second respondent as made clear above.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd