IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29347 of 2006(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED, KALLAN HOUSE, MELATOOR POST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), PERINTHALMANNA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MELATOOR. 3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. 4. KUNHIMUHAMMED, S/O. MUHAMMED, THEKKETHIL, KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R.4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 29347/2006 --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 17.11.1994. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.7.2005. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF REQUISITION NO. C1/1620/2000/MPNA DATED 21.12.2005 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE R.T.O., KOZHIKODE. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. D4 4480/05/MVT SERVED TO THE PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 13.11.2006 SHOWING THE SUM DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 49(2) ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 2.2.2006 FOR THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY R1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R4(1) PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN 4TH RESPONDENT AND SHRI. KHADER, 30.11.1994. EXT.R4(2) PHOTOCOPY OF PAGE NO. 38 OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT OF KRC 1085. EXT.R4(3) PHOTOCOPY OF PAGE NO. 9 OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, WITH RESPECT OF KRC 1085. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. TDS/ S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 29347 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle, which was being used as a lorry. According to the petitioner, the petitioner sold the said vehicle to the 4th respondent by agreement dated 17.11.1994. Revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2005 in respect of the said vehicle. According to the petitioner, the present owner of the vehicle had submitted G Form. But no action has been taken on the same. It is challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of tax for the above period from the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. Call for the records leading to Ext.P2 and P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3rd respondent to finalize the proceeding pursuant to Ext.P3 and issued necessary order exempting the petitioner from payment of motor vehicle tax in respect of vehicle No. KRC 1085; iii. issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to hand over possession of the residential house and property mentioned in Ext.P4 so as to enter into the residential house without any delay.” 2. The petitioner raises two contentions. The first is that since the 4th respondent has admitted possession of the vehicle, the authorities should have proceeded against the 4th respondent W.P(C) No. 29347 of 2006 -: 2 :- for recovery of the arrears of tax. The second is that the period is covered by G Forms. 3. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner being a registered owner of the vehicle, he continues to be liable for arrears of motor vehicle tax under the Act. He submits that it is true that G Forms were received for the period from 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2002. But it is kept pending for want of report from the field officer. He submits that the period for which the arrears of tax is claimed is not covered by G Forms. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein he says that the vehicle was dismantled and the fact was duly intimated by one Sri. Khader and therefore the vehicle was not in his possession after 5.10.2000. No evidence has been produced by anybody to prove that the 3rd respondent has been informed about dismantling of the vehicle at any time. That being so, that cannot be believed. Admittedly, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. Therefore notwithstanding the fact that others who are in possession of the vehicle can be proceeded against the liability of the petitioner never ceases as long as he continues to be the registered owner. He has not been able to satisfy this Court that the period for which the tax is claimed is covered by G Form. In fact, the contention is contradictory insofar as at one point he says that the period is covered by G Form and on the other he claims that the W.P(C) No. 29347 of 2006 -: 3 :- vehicle is not in existence. Further, for disposing of G Form application the fact that the vehicle has been garaged during the time has to be ascertained. Even going by the contentions of the petitioner and the 4th respondent that is not possible since their contention is that the vehicle is not now in existence. They cannot also explain to me as to how the two contentions that the vehicle has been dismantled in 2000 and G Forms have been filed even thereafter can go together. Insofar as the petitioner is admittedly the registered oner of the vehicle and insofar as under the Act, the registered owner is liable to continue to pay tax as long as he is a registered owner of the vehicle, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot be directed to proceed against other persons for recovery of tax. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner proceeding against any other person for recovery of tax if he has a case that other persons are liable to make good the amount paid by the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/