IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 20637 of 2011(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- V.K.NAVAS, S/O.KOCHARUMAN, VAYALODATHU HOUSE, VELIYATHUNADU, PIN 683101 ALUVA,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.P.M.JAMAL, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, PULIKUZHY HOUSE, BHARATMATHA COLLEGE,(VIA) THRIKKAKARA, MUNDAMPALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683513. 2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. SHANAVAS, S/O.RAMLA, MANGADAN HOUSE, KALADY.P.O., KALADY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 574. BY SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.20637/2011 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 15.9.10 ISSUED BY R1. EXT. P2 : COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND R3 ON 05.10.06. EXT. P3 : COPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA ON 21.06.07. EXT. P4 : COPY OF CIRCULAR No.28/2003 DTD. 17.7.03 ISSUED BY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT. P5 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE R2 BY PETITIONER CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER. EXT. P6 : COPY OF ORDER No.B1/6014/TC/2011 DTD. 18.4.11 PASSED BY R2 REJECTING EXT.P6 REVISION PETITION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20637 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. This writ petition is filed challenging orders in respect of demand for motor vehicle tax on vehicle No.KL-13M-5954 for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2010. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is not liable to pay the motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle, since the petitioner has already sold the vehicle. Since there is a charge on the vehicle itself for motor vehicle tax, I directed the learned Government Pleader to see that respondents 1 and 2 first proceed against the vehicle for recovery of the tax due. The learned Government Pleader submits that in spite of the best efforts of the revenue authorities, the vehicle could not be traced for being proceeded against. The petitioner has been taking time from 31.8.2011 onwards to point out the whereabouts of the vehicle to the revenue authorities. The W.P.(C)No.20637/11 2 petitioner has not been able to do the same till now. It is settled law that as long as the petitioner continues to be the registered owner, he continues to be liable for the motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle. But, it is open to respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the possessors of the vehicle also for recovery of the tax. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the petitioner and the 3rd respondent simultaneously for recovery of the tax. If any amount is recovered from the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to recover the said amount from the 3rd respondent, if the 3rd respondent was the possessor of the vehicle for any period covered by the demand. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.20637/11 3 W.P.(C)No.20637/11 4