IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 3555 of 2005(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.P.SALIM, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, ADIMALI, DEVIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKY. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, ADIMALY. 4. THE REGIONALTRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IDUKKY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEK CHAND FOR R1 TO R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3555/2005-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 07/01/02. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 10/11/03. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 15/12/04. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/01/05. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3555 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner was the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10C/9153. It was a stage carriage. He sold the vehicle to one Mr. C.S.Abdul Rehman as per Ext.P1 agreement dt.7.1.2002. Since the transferee failed to pay the tax, the petitioner has been served with a demand for payment of tax for the period from 1.1.2002 to 30.7.2002. Since the amount was not paid, Ext.P3 revenue recovery notice was served on him. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3. 2. The respondents have filed a statement stating that the petitioner has not intimated the competent authority regarding the transfer. So, the vehicle even now remains in the name of the petitioner. So, he is liable to pay the tax. 3. As long as the petitioner is the registered owner, he is also liable to pay the tax, apart from the person in possession of the vehicle, by virtue of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Therefore, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps