IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9364 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.K.IBRAHIAM, AGED 54 YEARS,S/O.KOYA, VATTAKKUDY HOUSE,THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, IRAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM PO,KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 5. ASHARAF, MANAGING DIRECTOR,TAMAR CURRY POWDER, MATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, KAVUM KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MARKET PO, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.9364 of 2010-U ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondents, mainly the revenue authorities, seeking to realise a sum of Rs.15,000/- with such other amounts as stipulated in Ext.P4, issued under the relevant provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, for realisation of the motor vehicle tax, in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KL-05/B 543. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had sold the vehicle to the fifth respondent, who subsequently transferred the ownership and possession of the vehicle to somebody else, which made the petitioner to approach the second respondent by filing a complaint. It is contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. With regard to the liability of the petitioner to pay the motor vehicle tax in question, it is very clear by virtue of the stipulation under Section 9 of the Act, that the registered owner is W.P(C) No.9364 of 2010-U 2 very much liable. Eventhough, the case of the petitioner is that the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the fifth respondent had already been communicated to the concerned respondent, no reliable material has been produced before this Court to establish the said factum of transfer or communication. In any way of the matter, the liability is stated as in respect of the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2009 as shown in Ext.P3 and the petitioner still continues to be the 'registered owner'. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court permits the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of 'two' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 31st of March 2010 and the next on or before the 30th of April, 2010. Subject to this, all further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance for the time being and if any default is committed by the petitioner, the respondents will be free to proceed further. 6. Since there is a specific case of the petitioner that the vehicle has already been transferred, the first respondent shall consider and pass appropriate order on Ext.P5 representation preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law, of course after W.P(C) No.9364 of 2010-U 3 giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ab