IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 22619 of 2004(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.PURUSHOTHAMAN, THONDALIL HOUSE, (P.O.) B.P.ANGADI, THALAKKAD, TIRUR 676 102. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TIRUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TALAKKAD. 4. KALLUMPURATH MAJEED, S/O.ABOOBACKER, KALLUMPURATH HOUSE, P.O.PANMANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R4 SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.K.RAVI KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.22619/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF AGREEMENT DT.27.6.1997. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.4.8.2001 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DT.10.10.2001 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.C2/TAX/KL10B 2589/03/m DT.10.12.2003 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE NO.K.DIS.D4.22747-2/2004 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF PETITION DT.26.7.2004 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22619 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner was the registered owner of a Trekker bearing registration No. KL-10/B-2589. He sold it to the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 agreement dated 27.6.1997. He submits he informed the Joint Regional Transport Officer about the transfer of ownership of the vehicle by Ext.P3 communication dated 10.10.2001. He has been served with Ext.P2 demand notice dated 4.8.2001 and also Ext.P4 notice dated 10.12.2003 demanding tax in respect of the vehicle for the period upto 31.12.2003. It was followed by Ext.P5 revenue recovery notice. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred Ext.P6 representation before the Joint Regional Transport Officer and thereafter, this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P4 and P5. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the vehicle could not be traced. I also heard the 4th respondent, who purchased the vehicle. In view of Section 9 W.P.(C) No.22619/2004 2 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the petitioner is also liable to pay tax, apart from the 4th respondent, who is the person in possession of the vehicle. So, I find nothing illegal with Exts. P4 or P5. The intimation given regarding the transfer of ownership under Ext.P3 is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the central rules framed thereunder. Further, the non-transfer of the registration of the vehicle cannot be collaterally attacked in these proceedings where the validity of Exts.P4 and P5 are in issue. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps