IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 9136 of 2007(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.C.JOSEPH,MADIKANGAL HOUSE,PARATHANAM, MUNDAKAYAM,KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI SRI.S.SURAJ (PALATHANATHU) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,KANJIRAPPALLY RT OFFICE PONKUNNAM P.O,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. P.S.SALIM,PUTHENPLACKAL,VANDIPERIYAR, VANCHIMALA VILLAGE,IDUKKI DISTRICT. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P KUNJACHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9136 of 2007(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 22.2.2001 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DY. TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY DT.13.7.2004 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KOOTICKAL, DT. 3.8.2004 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 251/2002 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE COURT DT.19.10.2002 EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE DT.30.9.2004 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DT.4.10.2004 EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DT. 17.1.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.9136 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 memo issued from the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Kanjirappalli directing payment of motor vehicle tax dues in respect of KL-5 4193 for the various periods between 1.4.2005 to 31.12.2006. The petitioner contends that the said vehicle was sold by him as per Ext.P1 on 22.2.2001 to the 3rd respondent and the liability for motor vehicle tax during the periods stated in Ext.P8 is not the petitioner's liability but the 3rd respondents liability. 2. The petitioner though has impleaded the 3rd respondent, the notice send in his name was returned with the endorsement 'not known'. The writ petition had been, on one earlier occasion, posted in the defect list and this Court by order dated 2.9.2011 directed the petitioner to cure the defect within a week's time on condition of payment of cost. The defects were cured and the notice send again was also returned with the endorsement 'not known'. The service as WPC 9136/2007 2 against the 3rd respondent not being completed the petitioner has failed to take any further steps against the 3rd respondent. However, in the nature of the orders now being passed I do not think that the writ petition should be kept pending for want of notice to the 3rd respondent. Government has filed counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the earlier demand notice served on the petitioner with respect to the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 was satisfied by the petitioner. The same is also admitted by the petitioner by production of Ext.P3 receipt. The contention of the State as revealed from the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has failed to intimate the fact of transfer as provided under section 50 and 51(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that in so far as no communication has been received in the office of the registering authority, the tax liability for the vehicle will be on the registered owner or on the person who is in possession of the vehicle. Pursuant to interim order dated 19.3.2007 in the above writ petition, the Motor Vehicle authorities had tried to trace out the vehicle and the same is reported to be not traceable despite the best efforts made by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Vandiperiyar. It is WPC 9136/2007 3 pertinent to note that though the petitioner claims to have sold the vehicle in February 2001 he has voluntarily paid the tax between 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004. Even after the recovery was effected for the periods after the alleged sale of the vehicle, the petitioner has not cared to intimate the concerned authority regarding the transfer of the vehicle. As is revealed from the counter affidavit the vehicle is also not traceable and no proceedings can be taken by proceeding against the vehicle for the recovery of tax due. In such circumstances, the liability would squarely fall on the registered owner of the vehicle and the petitioner cannot be heard to wriggle out of the liability especially since he has failed to comply with the statutory requirements with respect to the transfer of the Motor Vehicle. In the said circumstances, writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge