IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36404 of 2009(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M/S.BELL LEASING & HIRE PURCHASE LTD., 40/9715, BHAGEERATHA SANTHWANA, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADVS. MR.G.HARIHARAN MR.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M.P.UDAYAKUMAR, LALITHA VIHAR, THANISSERY P.O., IRINJALAKKUDA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.36404 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is a non-banking finance company, who had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 3rd respondent in relation to a stage carriage Bus bearing No:KL-8/B-9491. Eventhough inter-state permit was granted in favour of the vehicle, the 3rd respondent could not conduct operations. On default in payment of hire charges, petitioner took re-possession of the vehicle and on the basis of application, got a fresh registration certificate under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The vehicle in question was in the custody of the petitioner from 4.3.1998 onwards. After seizure of the vehicle by the petitioner there was no permit and the petitioner has not conducted any stage carriage operation. But Ext.P3 notice has now been issued on the petitioner demanding Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect the period from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.2004. The demand is made on the basis that exemption claimed by the 3rd respondent on submitting 'G' forms were rejected. It is further stated in Ext.P3 that the amount could not be recoverable from the 3rd respondent. Hence the amount is demanded from the W.P.(C).36404/09-U 2 petitioner on the basis that they are the financier and possessor of the vehicle. 2. According to the petitioner Ext.P3 is issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was never put on with any notice regarding fixation of liability for payment of Motor Vehicle Tax. If a proper proceedings is issued after adjudication of the matter with due notice, the petitioner will at least get a chance to file appeal before the appropriate authority. Therefore the contention is that Ext.P3 is issued in total violation of principles of natural justice. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P3 it is noticed that there is no mention regarding any notice issued to the petitioner before finalising the liability upon them. It is only imperative on the authority that the petitioner should have been afforded with an opportunity, before fixing liability upon them. Therefore I am of the opinion that the matter needs adjudication at the hands of the 1st respondent. The petitioner is given liberty to file detailed objection before the 1st respondent, treating Ext.P3 as a notice issued in this regard. Such objections shall be filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from today. The 1st respondent is directed to consider such objections if received W.P.(C).36404/09-U 3 and to adjudicate the same on issuing notice to the petitioner, as well as to the 3rd respondent. A proceedings on finalisation of such adjudication shall be issued to the petitioner. 4. It is made clear that if the petitioner files objections against Ext.P3 within the time stipulated as above, no further steps for realisation of the amounts covered under Ext.P3 shall be taken until the matter is adjudicated afresh as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb