IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13859 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.HAMZA, THAIPADATH HOUSE, OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KOZHIKODE. 2. MUHAMMED P.M., S/O. PUTHUKUDY USSAIN, VILLERIYITHODIKAYIL, KANNIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. SHEREED C.K., S/O. MUHAMMED, CHALIKUZHI, NAIRKUZHI DESOM, PULAKKOD VILLAGE, PAZOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE. 4. SULAIMAN, S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY, PARAMBATTUMMAL HOUSE, MEPPADY AMSOM, NAIRKUZHI DESOM, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 13859 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th May , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondents seeking to realise the amount stated as due towards tax payable in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL.2/P 4588. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was actually sold by him on 13.01.2009 and that the matter was reported to the concenrned authority. It is stated that the second respondent sold the vehicle to the third respondent and the third respondent to the fourth respondent, who allegedly without informing the R.T.O dismantled the vehicle. The first respondent has now issued a notice demanding Rs.67440/- as arrears of tax for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 from the petitioner, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Obviously the only contention raised by the petitioner is W.P.(C) No. 13859 OF 2010 2 that, he having sold the vehicle as per Ext. P1 agreement, no liability can be fastened upon his shoulders. Obviously, Ext. P1 is an agreement for sale, which by itself cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability; more so when the liability to pay tax is very much upon the shoulders of the registered owner, as per Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also stated that the second respondent has transferred the vehicle to the third respondent, who transferred it again to the 4th respondent, as per Exts.P2 and P3 agreements, which were executed on 31.03.2009 and 25.04.2009 respectively, i.e. within one month. Genuineness of the said agreements is liable to be subjected to scrutiny. This Court does not propose to go into any such exercise, as the petitioner continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle. The idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived and the plea is not sustainable. 4. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability in a phased manner . It is W.P.(C) No. 13859 OF 2010 3 made clear that the liability under Ext. P4 shall be cleared by the petitioner by way of 'three' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 31.05.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments as above, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the due amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk