IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 12404 of 1997(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.S.MATHEW, S/O.SCARIA, POOVATHUNGAL, UPPUKANDA P.O., (VIA) KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. A.R.VINOD, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, PATHIALIMURIYIL, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.12404 OF 1997-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.22.3.1997 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.7966 OF 1997 DT.9.5.1997 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.C6/KL-5/A/7160/TAX PTA DT.19.6.1997 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER / TRUE COPY / S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P.No.12404 of 1997-B ------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-5/A-7160. Petitioner claims to have sold the vehicle, as per a sale agreement dated 12.1.1996, to one Joseph. Petitioner also claims that pursuant to the sale agreement, possession of the bus was handed over to the said Joseph. It is further submitted that the said Joseph further effected transfer of the vehicle and now it is in the hands of the third respondent. Petitioner's grievance now is that although the petitioner had sold the vehicle in January, 1996, he has been served with Ext.P1 notice demanding motor vehicle tax for the vehicle, for the period from 1.10.1996 to 31.3.1997. Petitioner challenges that demand. Petitioner further contends that subsequently in respect of that vehicle somebody has forged the signature of the petitioner to apply for a permit. Petitioner also submits that subsequently the vehicle was stolen by somebody in respect of which a complaint has been filed by the third respondent and this Court by Ext.P4 judgment had directed investigation. According to the O.P.No.12404 of 1997 2 petitioner, in the above circumstances, no tax is payable by the petitioner as demanded in Ext.P1. Petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing Ext.P3. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law after affording opportunities of being heard to the petitioner and all other interested parties to fix the tax liability for the period 1.10.1996 to 31.3.1997.” 3. I have heard learned Government Pleader also. 4. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle. As such the liability to pay tax continues to be that of the petitioner. Of course, the respondents have powers to recover the tax from the transferee also by virtue of Section 9(1) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. However, Section 9(2) of the said Act makes it abundantly clear that nothing contained in sub- section (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability to pay the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle. In view of O.P.No.12404 of 1997 3 the said provision, petitioner continues to be liable to pay the tax notwithstanding the alleged transfer. 5. That being so, there is no merit in the challenge to Ext.P1 demand. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE vns