IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25513 of 2007(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.HARIDASAN,NELEKOLLALATH, MAYANAD P.O., KOZHIKODE BY ADV. MR.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THASILDAR (R.R),KOZHIKODE. 2. TAXATION OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,KOZHIKODE. 3. BASHEER,S/O.ANAGHALU MOIDEEN KOYA, CHERUVANNUR,KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 10995 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W .P.(C) NO.25513/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 25.8.04. P2:- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 28.5.07. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED A PETITIONER BEFORE THE NALLALAM CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE. P4:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOZHIKODE. P5:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 4.8.06. P6:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.25513 of 2007 & 10995 of 2008 ---------------------------- Dated 19th January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10A 8482 on the route Ummalathurthazham – Kinassery. He had lodged an intimation in Form `G' in respect of the said vehicle wherein it was stated that the vehicle is garaged at Ponnai Garage. By Ext.P5 order passed on 4.8.2006 the Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode rejected the intimation filed by the petitioner in respect of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10A 8482 for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished the exact place or address of the garage. The petitioner was called upon to remit the tax for the said period. When the tax was not paid revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for realisation of the motor vehicles tax in respect of the said vehicle for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006. W.P.(C)No.25513 of 2007 was thereupon filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner contends that he has transferred the vehicle to the third WP(C).Nos.25513/2007 & 10995/2008 2 respondent and that the vehicle is in the custody of the third respondent. He submits that as he had sent an intimation in Form `G' regarding non-use of the vehicle and the vehicle has been transferred to the third respondent on 25.8.2004, he is not liable to pay tax in respect of the said vehicle. After W.P.(C)No.25513 of 2007 was filed, respondents 1 and 2 therein took steps to realise the motor vehicles tax payable by the petitioner in respect of the very same vehicle for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2008. W.P.(C)No.10995 of 2008 was thereupon filed challenging the said recovery. In that writ petition also the very same contentions as in W.P.(C)No.25513 of 2007 are raised. 2. The second respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the alleged transfer in favour of the third respondent is a bogus transfer and that the petitioner has dismantled the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10A 8482. The second respondent has also stated that the petitioner has remitted the motor vehicles tax payable for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 on 16.2.2008 and that tax in respect of the said vehicle is due from him for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2008. The second respondent has along with the counter affidavit produced the statement given by the third respondent WP(C).Nos.25513/2007 & 10995/2008 3 (Ext.R2(a)) wherein the third respondent has denied having purchased the vehicle from the petitioner. The third respondent has in categorical terms stated that the sale agreement is a fabricated one and that his signature was obtained by the petitioner on a blank paper stating that it is required for filing a statement before the Labour Officer. The second respondent has also stated that if the petitioner's case is to be believed, he should have surrendered the permit issued to him in respect of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10A 8482 and that instead of surrendering the permit he applied for renewal of permit on 25.10.2004 and obtained renewal of permit on 12.11.2004. It is stated that at that stage, the petitioner had no case that he had transferred the vehicle to the third respondent. The second respondent has also stated that, as the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10A 8482, the petitioner is liable to pay the motor vehicles tax for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2008. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The pleadings and the materials on record cut at the root of the case set out by the petitioner that he ceased to be the owner of the vehicle on 25.8.2004. He had after the said date submitted an application before the Regional Transport Authority for renewal of the permit issued to him in respect WP(C).Nos.25513/2007 & 10995/2008 4 of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10A 8482. The petitioner has no case that the certificate of registration was transferred to the name of the third respondent. On the other hand, the third respondent has stated in categorical terms that he has not purchased the aforesaid vehicle from the petitioner and that the document if any evidencing such transfer is a fabricated document. Further, the pleadings also disclose that the petitioner has lodged a non-use intimation in Form `G' for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006. If he had ceased to be the owner as claimed by him on 25.8.2004, there was no occasion for him to lodge such an intimation. In such circumstances, I hold that the case put forward by the petitioner that he has transferred the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10A 8482 to the third respondent cannot be believed. 4. In Ext.P5, the Regional Transport Officer has stated in categorical terms that in the Form `G' intimation given by him, the petitioner has not specified the exact place or the address of the garage. In the writ petition also the petitioner has not furnished the details of the garage where the vehicle has been garaged. On the other hand, the first respondent has stated in categorical terms that the vehicle is not traceable and has been dismantled. As the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10A 8284, WP(C).Nos.25513/2007 & 10995/2008 5 the petitioner is bound to pay motor vehicles tax in respect of the said vehicle as demanded by the respondents. It is now not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the tax in respect of the said vehicle for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.5.2006. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the tax for the period thereafter namely from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2008 has not been paid. In such circumstances, the official respondents are entitled to proceed to realise the tax payable in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10A 8482 from the petitioner and his assets. I therefore find no merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS