IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 29533 of 2004(N) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R. RAVI, THENGUVILAKATHUMEL PUTHENVEEDU PUNNAKKADU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ULLOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. ADDL.3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NEYYATINKARA. (ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.10.2006 IN IA 13289/2006) ADDL.4. M/S.RAVEENDRA INVESTMENT, RAM LAKHAN CHAMBER, 2/4-IIND FLOOR, 18/19 GENERAL MUTHIAH MUDALI STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-79. (ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.10.2006 IN IA 14047/2006) R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE SRI.K.MOHAN FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.BAIJU JOSEPH FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.29533 of 2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 29.1.1995 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH SHRI SURESH SHIBU EXT.P2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.1.1995 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3 COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.C2.1779/NTA/98 DATED NIL.5.98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P4 COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.12.1996 EXECUTED BETWEEN C.SELVARAJ AND SHRI KUMAR EXT.P5 COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EXT.P6 COPY OF MEMO DATED 14.7.2004 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P7 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22.9.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESEPONDENT EXT.P8 COPY OF MEMO DATED 18.8.2004 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P9 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15.10.2004 ISSUED IN FORM NO.1 BY THE ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P10 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15.10.2004 ISSUED IN FORM NO.10 BY THE ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P11 COPY OF COMMUNICATION/PETITION SUBMITTED BY CHELLAPPAN BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT / TRUE COPY / P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 29533 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court challenging the liability sought to be realised by respondents 1, 2 and 3 in respect of the arrears payable pertaining to the Vehicle bearing No.KL- 01/B-4302, a Mahindra Omni Bus, owned and operated by the petitioner earlier. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner sold the said vehicle to one Mr.Velayudhan Suresh Shibu on 29.01.95 on the strength of Ext.P1 agreement and the position was communicated to the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P2. Though the petitioner concedes that there is no concrete proof regarding the communication, it is contended that the factual position in this regard is very much discernible from other relevant records. 2. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 memo issued by the 2nd respondent in respect of the application stated as preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a fresh permit. It is contended that the petitioner was taken to surprise on WP(C) No. 29533 of 2004 -:2:- receiving that notice, as the vehicle had already been sold by him to the aforesaid Shibu way back in 1995. In the said circumstances, the petitioner appeared and explained the position before the concerned respondent. It is stated that the petitioner had also forwarded a copy of the subsequent agreement (Ext.P4) executed between one Selvaraj and Kumar in support of the contention that the vehicle had already been transferred by the petitioner, which was sent by registered post and served to the addressee, as evident from Ext.P5 postal acknowledgment card. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after the sale effected by the petitioner vide Ext.P1, the vehicle was sold by the transferee Shibu to one Selvaraj, who in turn sold the same to one Kumar as borne by Ext.P4. Mr.Kumar sold the vehicle to one Chellappan on 06.07.97, after which the aforesaid Chellappan procured some finance from the additional 4th respondent on the strength of the vehicle creating hypothecation on 04.04.98. However, without regard to the above sequence of events, Ext.P6 notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.07.04, WP(C) No. 29533 of 2004 -:3:- demanding a sum of Rs.93,600/- stating as arrears of Tax for the period from 01.07.01 to 30.09.04. Petitioner preferred Ext.P7 representation explaining the position, disputing the liability and also seeking to get absolved from such liability. After considering the matter, Ext.P8 notice was issued by the 2nd respondent on 18.08.04, stating that the liability is actually in respect of the period from 01.04.99 to 30.09.04. Petitioner is challenging Exts.P6 and P8 in this writ petition. 4. During the course of the proceedings as above, the petitioner was confronted with Exts.P9 and P10 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act which have been produced along with IA No.13290 of 2006 seeking for stay of the same. Subsequently, when the additional 4th respondent was sought to be impleaded by filing IA No.14047 of 2006, the petitioner produced a copy of the letter stated as written and submitted by the aforesaid Chellappan before the 2nd respondent, conceding that the vehicle purchased by him on 06.07.97 was re-possessed by the 'financier' for default of the instalment. The learned WP(C) No. 29533 of 2004 -:4:- counsel further submits that, though an interim order was passed by this Court, when the matter was admitted on 08.10.04, directing the respondent to seize the vehicle, nothing has transpired in the positive. 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent pointing out that the vehicle was not available within the jurisdiction of the concerned officer and that no information was obtained from the financier who had re-possessed the vehicle. 6. The additional 4th respondent/financier filed a counter affidavit stating that the vehicle was hypothecated by one Mr.S.Chellappan Sanku Nadar, availing finance from the said respondent and in view of the default, the vehicle was recovered on 20.04.1998. Subsequently, on remitting the due amount, the possession of the vehicle was given back to the aforesaid Chellappan on 18.06.98 and as such, the said respondent is not a necessary party to the above proceedings. 7. In the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it WP(C) No. 29533 of 2004 -:5:- is specifically contended that the petitioner had approached the Government in the meanwhile and had agreed in writing, to clear the liability by way of instalments. The said contention raised from the part of the 2nd respondent is not chosen to be regretted by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit. So also, the petitioner has not chosen to implead the transferee by name 'Shibu', to whom the petitioner transferred the vehicle, nor the other persons including Selvaraj, Kumar or Chellappan, to whom the vehicle was transferred subsequently. In the absence of the concerned persons in the party array, this Court finds it difficult to examine the merits of the said contentions and the relative rights and liabilities. More so, when the petitioner still continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle and is very much liable under Section 9 of the KMV Taxation Act. 8. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to proceed against the others concerned, by preferring appropriate proceedings before the WP(C) No. 29533 of 2004 -:6:- appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 9. Taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plight of the petitioner is so poor that he is not in a position to satisfy the entire liability in a lump, the petitioner is permitted to clear the existing liability by way of 10 equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before 30.09.2010, followed by the remaining instalments to be effected on or before 30th of every succeeding month. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings now being pursued by the respondents shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. In case of any default in the payment as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to realise the entire amount from the petitioner by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb