IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36111 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LAILA SAIN, W/O. SAIN T.VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS,THUNDIYIL HOUSE,AZHIYEDATHUCHIRA P.O THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 113. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 2. M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, 36/847, CHITTUR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. NARAYANAN NAIR, NADUVILA HOUSE, KARUMUNDANCHERY, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 36111 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 30, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 and the petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent not to proceed against the petitioner without complying with the directions of this court in Ext.P2 judgment. 2. Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL04 2929. It is stated by the petitioner that on the basis of an agreement dated 1.11.2003, the vehicle has been sold by him. However, the fact remains that the petitioner still continues to be the registered owner and demand was made on the petitioner in respect of the motor vehicle tax for the period from 1.7.2006 to 30.9.2007. 3. Earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioner when a similar demand was made and that case was disposed of by Ext.P2 WP(C) 36111/07 Page numbers judgment. In paragraph 3 of the said judgment it has been held by this court that as long as the petitioner remains the registered owner, she is also liable to pay the arrears of tax. It is further directed that the respondents therein shall seize the vehicle if it is available and sell it to realise the amounts due to the State. It was also directed that if the vehicle is found to be dismantled, the 1st respondent shall cancel the registration certificate with effect from the date it is so found. 4. According to the petitioner, the present demand has been made without complying with the direction in Ext.P2. Petitioner submits that the only step that was taken is evident from Ext.R1(b) and that even before that notice was issued, steps were taken against her for realising the tax due for the aforesaid period. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, making reference to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, submits that in pursuance to the judgment of this court, Ext.R1(a) statement of the petitioner was recorded on 10.4.2007. It is stated that although the petitioner was stated to be in the knowledge of the whereabouts of the vehicle, she could WP(C) 36111/07 Page numbers not find out the said vehicle. It is stated that all possible enquiries were made and on failure to trace the vehicle, finally a notice was issued as Ext.R1(b). It is stated that steps were taken against the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle. 6. Having heard the submissions made by both sides, I am inclined to think that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle cannot plead that she is not at all responsible for making payment of the tax that is due so long as she is the registered owner of the vehicle. This liability of the petitioner has also been recognised by this court in paragraph 3 of Ext.P2 judgment. It is true that in Ext.P2 this court had directed the respondents to trace the vehicle and sell it to realise the amount that is due. From the facts as disclosed in the counter affidavit, it is obvious that the respondents have taken all reasonable steps and it was on account of the non-availability of the vehicle that they had to turn against the registered owner of the vehicle. If, as a matter of fact, the respondents have failed in tracing out the vehicle, they cannot be faulted if steps have been taken against the registered owner who is primarily responsible for making payment of the tax that is due. WP(C) 36111/07 Page numbers Needless to say that after payment is made by the petitioner or the amount is realised, if they succeed in pursuance to Ext.R1(b) notice, necessary adjustments will thereafter be made by the respondent. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-