IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32589 of 2011(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MOHANDAS, KOYIKKALATH HOUSE, RAMAPURAM MURI, KEERIKKAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM, PIN-690 502. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 32589/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SOLE AGREEMENT DTD.10.4.96. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DTD.9.6.04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.457/05 DTD.15.2.2008. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1668/2008. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DTD.7.7.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD S.SIRI JAGAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)NO. 32589 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December 2011 --------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is the present owner of a motor vehicle. Motor vehicle tax fell in arrears in respect of the vehicle. The original registered owner filed a writ petition namely W.P.C. No.457 of 2005 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court cancelled the demand against the registered owner and directed the respondents to proceed against the petitioner herein. The petitioner challenged that judgment in writ Appeal No.1688 of 2008. By Ext.P5 judgment, the liability of the petitioner to pay was confirmed. Thereupon, Ext.P6 demand was issued which included interest. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is not liable to pay interest for period prior to Ext.P6 demand. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P6 relates to arrears of motor vehicle tax. The petitioner has successfully withheld payment of the same, depriving the State of amounts due to him statutorily. For that the petitioner is liable to pay interest. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the demand of interest also. As such, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE STU 2 3