IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14015 of 2004(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- U.RAVI, S/O. GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, URATH HOUSE, NALLANKARA P.O, NETTISSERY,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), THRISSUR. 3. RAJITHA, W/O. LATE VASU, PALLISSERY HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., NALLANKARA, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON 16/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 14015 of 2004 -R --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June , 2009 J U D G M E N T The steps taken by the respondents for realization of the arrears of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxes Act 1976 in respect of the vehicle bearing No:KRR-7105 are under in challenge. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, though he was the registered owner of the vehicle, having purchased the same on 02/12/1996, the petitioner had sold the same to the husband of the 3rd respondent (who expired later) on the basis of Ext.P1 sale agreement. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the liability to pay the motor vehicles tax is also vested upon the registered owner as well, by virtue of the categoric stipulation under Sec.9 of the Act. That apart, but for the assertion as to the sale referring to Ext.P1 agreement, no reliable materials have been brought to light, to hold that the vehicle had actually been sold. Further, no intimation as to the sale was given to the departmental authorities, despite the duty cast under the W.P.C.No.14015/04 2 relevant provisions of law. 3. In the above facts and circumstances particularly when the petitioner is admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle, the Writ Petition does not call for any interference. It is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE. sbna/