IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24863 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- C.MANIKUMAR, S/O.IMBICHEKKAN, AGED 48, SREEPURAM, CHAMMALA PARAMBATH, KARANTHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELATHOOR, KOZHIKODE DT. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), KOZHIKODE. 5. SURESH BABU CHINNAPPAN, S/O.HARIDASAN, AGED 34, ITHARAMKUNI HOUSE, ELATHOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DT.-673 303. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 24863 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge is against revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realization of motor vehicles tax due with respect to the vehicle bearing No.KL-10-D 5715, pertaining the to period from 1-7-2004 to 30-9-2004. 2. It is admitted by the petitioner that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. But it is contended that the vehicle is being used by the 5th respondent by virtue of an agreement (Ext.P1) executed between him and the 5th respondent. It is mentioned that when he came to know about the attempts for dismantling of the vehicle by the 5th respondent, with a view to defeat legitimate claims of the petitioner, he had lodged a complaint before the police authorities. It is stated that Crime No.223 of 2004 of Elathur Police Station was registered and the vehicle in question was taken into custody. 3. Dispute raised in this writ petition pertains to W.P.(C) No. 24863/2010 2 recovery of Motor Vehicles Tax due on the vehicle in question. The impugned revenue recovery proceedings was initiated on the basis of the requisition made by the 2nd respondent. But before initiating the revenue recovery steps, the petitioner was not served with any order or demand, is the allegation. Even though the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, he is not liable for payment of the motor vehicles tax during the relevant period, since the vehicle was in the possession and use of the 5th respondent, is the contention. But I am afraid, that in view of the provisions contained under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the petitioner cannot be exonerated from the liability, he being the registered owner. 4. On receipt of notice under the revenue recovery proceedings, the petitioner had raised objections before the revenue recovery authorities, as evidenced from Ext.P4. Further he had submitted objection to the 2nd respondent refuting the liability, as evidenced from Ext.P7. Since coercive steps are being pursued without considering such W.P.(C) No. 24863/2010 3 objections, this writ petition is filed. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that there exists a dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent with respect to liability for payment of the motor vehicles tax. It is evident that no adjudication was done by the competent authority on the basis of any such dispute before initiating steps for recovery. Hence, I am of the opinion that the matter can be relegated to the 2nd respondent to conduct an adjudication, after affording opportunity to the petitioner and the 5th respondent, in order to fix the liability for payment of the tax. It is also open to the petitioner to raise contentions regarding non use of the vehicle, if the vehicle was in police custody during the relevant period. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 submitted by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. The decision in this regard shall be taken, as W.P.(C) No. 24863/2010 4 early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further coercive steps, pursuant to Exts.P3 and P6 notices, till a decision is taken by the 2nd respondent as directed above. It is made clear that both the petitioner and the 5th respondent will be at liberty to invoke appellate jurisdiction, if any of them is aggrieved by the orders that will be passed by the 2nd respondent. 8. It is also made clear that attachment if any effected on the immovable properties of the petitioner pursuant to the revenue recovery steps will continue till a decision is taken by the 2nd respondent. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.