IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 35007 of 2002(P) -------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ 1. K.EASANA PITARAR, S/O. LATE NARAYANA PITARAR, KIZHAKKE ILLAM, NILESHWARAM, NILESWAR VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY NO.2 SANTHA KUMARI 2. SHANTHA KUMARI, W/O.EASANA PITARAR, KIZHAKKE ILLAM, NILESHWARAM, NILESWAR VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKA DEVI RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (TAXATION) KASARAGOD. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, HOSDURGE 3. RAJEEVAN S/O. CHERUVAKANDAS, KUTHURUMMAL HOUSE, TALIPPARAMBU TALUK. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR - R1,R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 35007 of 2002(P) ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.59207/2002, I.A.NO.16064/2004, I.A.4952/2007 IN OP.No. 35007/2002 DISMISSED 17.07.2008 SD/-, ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 35007 of 2002 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 17, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this original petition is against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for realisation of the Motor Vehicles Tax due in respect of the Vehicle of which the petitioners were the registered owners. Petitioners seek to avoid payment only on the ground that they had entered into an agreement for sale of the vehicle with the 3rd respondent. On this ground it is their contention that the 3rd respondent is liable to pay the tax. It is seen that on receipt of the demand notice, the petitioners have approached the 2nd respondent explaining their case. Obviously, the 2nd respondent, being the recovery authority, cannot exonerate the petitioners from the liability, if any, for making payment of the motor vehicle tax. 2. Going by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle OP 35007/2002 2 Taxation Act, 1975, petitioners are liable. If that be so, the authorities cannot be faulted for the action taken against them. However, if, as a matter of fact, the vehicle has been transferred to the 3rd respondent, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the 1st respondent, in which case, the 1st respondent shall take note of such objection and pass appropriate orders. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-