IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22848 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJESH KHANNA, S/O.DAMODARAN, VYPPEL HOUSE, RESIDING AT MOORKKATTIL HOUSE, KARIKKODE P.O., PERUVA VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM. 4. RATHEESH, PULLICHALIL HOUSE, PEAZHAKKAPPILLY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 5. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, CHANOOR PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, MANIYAR KARA, PUNALOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. SOMASUNDRAN PILLAI,S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, KADAVUNKAL HOUSE, PARAKKODE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. M/S. BALAJI FINANCE COMPANY, NO.47, KALATHI PILLAI STREET, SOWEARPET, CHENNAI-600079. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22848 of 2008(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 18.03.1999. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26.06.2000 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15.01.04. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. 7087/2004 DATED 15.10.04 FOR ATTACHMENT OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1634/2001 DATED 26.06.2001. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO., G2/7087/04 DATED 23.07.05. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 10.08.2005 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRPESENTATION DATED 09.08.2005 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2008 IN W.P.(C) 26547 OF 2005 EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS ISSUED ON 16.08.2005 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RSPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R7 : A COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.03.1999. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 22848 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings taken against the petitioner in respect of the alleged tax liability under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act pertaining to the lorry bearing No. KL.5A/2849 which was owned by the petitioner earlier . The case of the petitioner is that the said vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on 17. 12.1997 and there was a 'Hire Purchase Agreement' with the 7th respondent/financier. But since repayment could not be effected as scheduled, the vehicle was forcefully taken possession by the 7th respondent, who subsequently sold the same to the 4th respondent. This being the position, the petitioner is not liable to satisfy the tax under any circumstance and hence is under challenge. . 2. The correctness and sustainability of proceedings of the second and third respondents have been sought to be sustained by filing a counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader W.P.(C) No. 22848 OF 2008 2 also refers to the mandate under Section 9 of the above Act, which very much casts the liability upon the registered owner of the vehicle as well. 3. The learned Counsel for the 7th respondent submits, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed, that the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner as to the forceful re-possession of the vehicle by the financier are not correct or proper. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that the vehicle was taken possession on 09.03.1999, and the petitioner thereafter came to settle the matter. Accordingly, it was settled, when the petitioner effected payment of Rs.35000/-, agreeing to pay the balance amount within one month, pursuant to which, the vehicle was released to the petitioner on 10.03.1999. Reliance is also placed on Ext.R7 receipt issued by the petitioner in this regard. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the course and events described by the 7th respondent in the counter affidavit are not correct and the actual position is something else. The learned Counsel also submits that the 4th W.P.(C) No. 22848 OF 2008 3 respondent has not turned up before this Court to dispute the averments raised in the Writ Petition even after service of notice. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the various agreements (Exts.P1 and P2) with regard to the transfer of possession and ownership of the vehicle. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to the interim order dated 29.07.2008, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the balance amount is only Rs.50,000/-. The learned Counsel lastly submits that the petitioner may be permitted to clear the liability in view of statutory prescription under Section 9 of the Act, however by way of reasonable installments, with liberty to proceed against the actual persons concerned . 5. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is permitted to clear the balance liability by way of 'three' E.M.Is, the first of which shall be cleared on or before 10.08.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to the satisfaction of the liability as above, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 shall stand dropped and the concerned respondents will be at liberty to W.P.(C) No. 22848 OF 2008 4 proceed against the vehicle, if any further liability is outstanding. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to proceed against the other parties concerned in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk