IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 3625 of 2005(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TRANSWORLD HIRE PURCHASE INDIA LIMTIED, TRANSWORLD TOWERS, BUSINESS LANE, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOLLAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR [RR], KOLLAM. 3. G.BIJU, KALEELIL THEKKETHIL, VETTILATHAZHAM, DECENT JUNCTION, KOLLAM. 4. V.UNNI, S/O.VISWAMBARAB, SUDHARMA VILASAM, KADAKKODU, KOLLAM. *5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, QUILON. (*SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 01/02/2005) BY ADV. SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R4 SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.HARISH GOPINATH FOR R3 SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3625/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 17/06/2004 BY PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.D5-3758/2004 DATED 03/11/2004. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3625 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T A relatively new vehicle, of which petitioner was the registered owner, was given on hire to 3rd respondent under hire purchase agreement and he sold the same to 4th respondent. The vehicle is in arrears of tax and petitioner approached this Court challenging recovery proceedings. This Court vide order dated 01/02/2005 impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Kollam as additional 5th respondent in the writ petition and directed him to trace the vehicle and petitioner was directed to collect information about the vehicle and pass over the same to the additional respondent for taking the vehicle into custody. However, even now the vehicle is not recovered. Petitioner's case is that the additional 5th respondent did not take any action. However for the last three years petitioner has not complained of the same, which petitioner could have done by way of moving a contempt petition in this Court. In any case, it is for the petitioner to recover the vehicle, if they so desire by resorting to legal proceedings. Since petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, petitioner is liable for payment of motor vehicle WP(C) No.3625/2005 -2- tax under Section 3(3) of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, but with the above observations. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg