IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30147 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.M.CHACKOCHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, VALAKKODE VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30147 OF 2008 L ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Prayer in this writ petition is to furnish all details in respect of Ext.P1 notice, to quash Ext.P1 notice as the same does not contain any details with regard to the nature of arrears or period of arrears, etc. and to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as claimed in Ext.P1 by declaring that the petitioner is not a defaulter. 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner was served with notice demanding Rs.35,100/- for the alleged arrears of motor vehicle tax. Ext.P1 is dated 29.8.2008. But, it was served to the petitioner only on the eve of the holiday i.e., on 30.9.2008. It is stated that Ext.P1 notice is issued without disclosing any details or information. It does not contain any details regarding the nature of the default, period of default or the manner of default. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent on receipt of Ext.P1 and sought clarification under the impression that Ext.P1 notice was served on him by a mistake. It is stated WPC.30147/08 : 2 : that after the meeting with the 1st respondent, the petitioner came to understand that Ext.P1 is issued not under a mistake and he refused to furnish the details. It is stated that the petitioner is totally unaware of any kind of defaults in respect of any vehicles in his possession. In Ext.P1, it is stated that the amount is demanded in respect of motor vehicle tax arrears. It is stated that the petitioner has not committed any kind of defaults in respect of the vehicles mentioned and that Ext.P1 is liable to quash. The grounds taken are that Ext.P1 does not contain any details regarding the period of arrears, nature of default, etc. It is further contended that the respondents are bound to furnish the details to the petitioner regarding the nature and period of arrears. It is further contended that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner has not committed any default in respect of any of the vehicles in his possession and finally, the ground taken is that the respondent ought to have at least furnished the number of vehicle committed the default for claiming the amount covered under Ext.P1. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Joy WPC.30147/08 : 3 : George as also the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader submits that the case of the petitioner cannot be accepted at all. He points out that there is an earlier writ petition and there was direction with the petitioner on party array. I called for the records and I find that the petitioner is the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.27988/04. I quote the entire judgment. “ Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax amounting to Rs.35,000/- in respect of Tata mini lorry bearing registration No.KL- 13A-2194 for the period from 1.1.2000 to 31.6.2004. While the case of counsel for the petitioner is that vehicle was sold to fifth respondent vide Ext.P1 sale agreement, Government Pleader submitted that registered owner is liable to pay tax under section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Counsel for the fifth respondent has admitted that the vehicle so purchased by him was transferred to another person. In other words, petitioner's case stands proved. The person in possession and control of the vehicle is also liable to pay tax under section 3(2) of the Act. It is for the fifth respondent to identify the purchaser and make him pay the tax or otherwise he will be liable as WPC.30147/08 : 4 : he was admittedly in possession and control of the vehicle. If the fifth respondent locates the vehicle and inform the Motor Vehicle Department of Police, the vehicle should be seized and sold first for recovery of arrears of tax or otherwise recovery will be proceeded against the fifth respondent as he was in possession and control of the vehicle and his purchaser could not be located by the department. Recovery proceedings against the petitioner stands cancelled. W.P. is disposed of as above.” This judgment is dated 25.6.2007. On a perusal of the judgment, it is clear that the learned Judge found that the case of the writ petitioner in that case stands proved and it is for the 5th respondent namely, the writ petitioner in this case, to identify the purchaser and make him pay the tax or otherwise he will be liable. Finally, the direction was if the petitioner locates the vehicle and inform the Motor Vehicle Department of Police, the vehicle should be seized and sold first for recovery of arrears of tax or recovery will be proceeded against the writ petitioner in this case. Recovery proceedings against the writ petitioner in that case came to be cancelled. WPC.30147/08 : 5 : 4. After perusing the said judgment, I am of the clear view that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition. The petitioner has not mentioned anything about the judgment dated 25.6.2007 in W.P.(C) No.27988/04. It was for the petitioner if he was so advised to locate the vehicle and inform the Motor Vehicle Department of Police. The failure on the part of the petitioner to do so apparently invited the respondent to invoke the judgment of this court. There was a direction to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner. Apparently, Ext.P1 is a notice issued in terms of the judgment of this court. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if he is given a week's time, he can locate the vehicle. I am not inclined to grant any relief in this case. Having regard to the facts of the case which I have already mentioned, writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE