IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14194 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- SMT.P.REMADEVI, W/O.K.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT "POURNAMI", H.NO.IX/262, P.O.EDANEER, CHANGALA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 2. TAHSILDAR (R.R), KASARAGOD. 3. TOJI ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, KALLAR RAJAPURAM P.O., (VIA) ANANDASRAM, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 14194 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 6th August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondents particularly, 1 and 2 for realisation of arrears of tax in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL-14/B-7772, which, according to the petitioner, was transferred to the third respondent as early as on 25.07.2005 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the transaction between the petitioner and the third respondent is rather in the form of an exchange, whereby the vehicle owned by the petitioner bearing No. KL.14/B - 7772 was transferred to the third respondent and the vehicle owned by the thrid respondent bearing No. KL 14/B 1440 was purchased by the petitioner, as borne by Ext.P1. Pursuant to Ext. P1, it is contended that, ownership of the vehicle bearing No. KL.14B/1440 was changed in the name of the petitioner, as borne by Ex.P2 Certificate of Registration. But the vehicle W.P.(C) No. 14194 OF 2010 2 bearing No. KL/14B 7772, which was stated as sold by the petitioner to the third respondent was not caused to be transferred to the name of the third respondent by making similar endorsement at the hands of the departmental authorities. In the above circumstance, since the petitioner continued to be the registered owner, steps were pursued by the respondents 1 and 2 to realise the tax arrears in respect of the vehicle bearing Ho. KL.14/B 7772 by proceeding against the petitioner and his assets, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W..P.(C) 1203 of 2007, which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment. Pursuant to the said verdict the matter was considered and instead of proceeding against the third respondent or finalising the matter after hearing both the petitioner and the third respondent, further coercive steps were taken only against the petitioner, which was subjected to challenge in W.P.(C) No. 24720 of 2009, leading to Ext.P8 judgment. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P8 judgment has been given only scant regards by the respondents, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present W.P.(C) No. 14194 OF 2010 3 Writ petition. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a detailed counter affidavit, producing copies of the relevant documents as Exts. R1 (a) to R1(d) in response to which, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit as well. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the specific direction given by this Court , the respondents are simply keeping silence without proceeding against the third respondent, who, according to the petitioner, is the actual owner and that the petitioner is being harassed, which is liable to be intercepted by this Court. 5. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit as well as the documents produced, submits that in compliance with the direction given by this Court notice was issued to the third respondent , which was returned unserved stating that he left India as borne by Ext.R1 (a). Subsequently, another notice was issued which was served to the wife of the third respondent , who did not choose to appear or produce any evidence before the concerned authority W.P.(C) No. 14194 OF 2010 4 in connection with the enquiry. It is also pointed out that the petitioner, on 17.12.2009, had filed Ext.R1(c) statement stating that at the time of transfer of the vehicle she had not transferred the permit or ownership. It is also brought on record as revealed from Ext..R1(d) report of the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector that the vehicle was subsequently dismantled and is not in existence. It is in the above circumstance, that the respondents 1 and 2 had proceeded against the petitioner issuing Ext. P9 which is in conformity with the statutory prescription and is not assailable under any circumstance, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner still continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle and by virtue of the mandate under Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the registered owner is liable to satisfy the tax arrears. This being the position, the impugned proceedings are not liable to be declared as arbitrary. The Writ Petition fails on merit and it is dismissed accordingly. 7. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions W.P.(C) No. 14194 OF 2010 5 made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire liability by way of '10' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be cleared on or before 30.08.2010; to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the amount in a lump, from the stage where it stands now. It is also made clear that the rights and liberties of the petitioner to proceed against the third respondent for realisation of the due amount by resorting to appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum are left open. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk