IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34323 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- AZEEZ, S/O.KUNJIKKAYI, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALLIPPATTU HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-21. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 030. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34323 of 2010-M ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the owner of a Tata Lorry, 1969 model, bearing registration No.KLK-9164. According to the petitioner the vehicle was very old and was not roadworthy. It is alleged that the vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner to one Mr.Chandragopi on 10.3.2005, by virtue of Ext.P1 sale agreement. The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to demand raised by the 1st respondent for payment of arrears of motor vehicles tax due for the period from 1.4.2005 to 30.6.2008. According to the petitioner he had intimated the 1st respondent about sale of the vehicle, which was acknowledged by the 1st respondent. Inspite revenue recovery steps were initiated for realising the amount of vehicle tax in arrears from the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle was not put to use during the relevant period and it was not kept for use because it was not roadworthy. Hence according to the W.P(C) No.34323 of 2010-M 2 petitioner the tax was not liable to be imposed. Further contention is that even if any tax is due, the same need be recovered from the purchaser of the vehicle, who has been put in possession of the vehicle after 10.3.2005. 2. In a statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is mentioned that the petitioner still continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question. It is further stated that there was no proper intimation issued by the petitioner with respect to the alleged sale and Ext.P2 was not received by the 1st respondent. Further contention of the 1st respondent is that being a transport vehicle the petitioner ought to have surrendered the permit, while intimating the sale and it was noticed that the petitioner had not complied with any such requirements. Inspite of such contentions it is mentioned in the statement that “However the details of the sale of the vehicle, change of possession and present whereabouts of the vehicle are under enquiry. Soon after the receipt of the enquiry report from the field offer, the matter will be W.P(C) No.34323 of 2010-M 3 adjudicated after hearing the petitioner”. 3. In view of the stand taken by the 1st respondent as above and in view of the fact that there was no adjudication done before fixing the liability, I am of the view that the matter need be relegated to the 1st respondent to have a proper adjudication and to finalise the liability. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to conduct an adjudication with respect to the liability for payment of motor vehicles tax, due with respect to the vehicle in question, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the person to whom the vehicle was alleged to have been sold by virtue of Ext.P1. A decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time the adjudication as directed above is finalised, coercive steps of recovery now initiated against the petitioner on the basis of Exts.P4 and P5 shall be kept in W.P(C) No.34323 of 2010-M 4 abeyance. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, for proper compliance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab