IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24895 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ V.K.IBRAHIM, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KOYA, VATTAKKUDY HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, IRAMALLOOR. 4. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 5. ASHARAF, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMAR CURRY POWDER, MATTAPPILLI HOUSE, KAVUM KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.24895 of 2010-J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the registered owner of a vehicle bearing No.KL-5/B 543. According to the petitioner, the vehicle in question was sold by him during the year 2004 to the 5th respondent, by executing a sale agreement. But the 5th respondent had failed to effect transfer of ownership and the petitioner continued as the registered owner of the vehicle, as per records. According to the petitioner, he had raised complaints before respondents 1 and 2 regarding inaction on the part of the 5th respondent in not effecting transfer of registration and sought appropriate action against the 5th respondent in this regard. But it is contended that respondents 1 and 2 had not taken any action for effecting transfer of registration. 2. While so, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 memo demanding payment of tax for the period from WP(C).No.24895 of 2010-J. 2 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2009 and recovery steps were initiated on the basis of Exts.P4 notice for realising the amount due. According to the petitioner, he had submitted a further representation to the 5th respondent as evidenced from Ext.P5, requesting to effect transfer of the ownership and to exonerate him from future liability. Since such requests were not considered and no steps were taken, this writ petition is filed, seeking directions against the first respondent to effect mutation and also seeking declaration to the effect that the petitioner is not liable to pay any motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle in question. 3. It is brought to my notice that, in an earlier Writ Petition, WP(C).No.9364/2010 filed challenging Ext.P3 memo, through which tax was demanded for the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2009, by judgment dated 19.3.2010, this Court had permitted the petitioner to make the payment by way of two equal monthly instalments falling due on 31.3.2010 and 30.4.2010. This Court further directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders on WP(C).No.24895 of 2010-J. 3 Ext.P3 representation preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, there occurred a mistake in the address of the first respondent in the above writ petition and also in the judgment rendered on 19.3.2010. Therefore the petitioner could not approach the 1st respondent for implementation of the directions contained in the above said judgment. 4. It is pertinent to note that, transfer of ownership of a vehicle can be effected only after complying the statutory procedures contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevant Rules. Such transfer of ownership could not be effected merely on the basis of a representation submitted by the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner had not taken any steps pursuant to the directions issued by this Court by the judgment before the first respondent or by attempting correction if any to be made therein. It is submitted that, pursuant to directions contained in the judgment in WP(C).No.9364/2010, the WP(C).No.24895 of 2010-J. 4 petitioner had remitted the tax amount due as demanded in Ext.P3 for the period 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2009. In such circumstance, I am of the view that the relief sought for in this writ petition for effecting mutation regarding ownership of the vehicle and also for a declaration that the petitioner is not liable for payment of Motor Vehicles Act, could not be granted. 5. However, I am of the view that, in view of the directions already issued by this Court in WP(C). No.9364/2010, the petitioner can be relegated to the first respondent, who will conduct an enquiry after due notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent and will take appropriate decision with respect to the liability for payment of Motor Vehicles Tax with respect to the periods after 31.12.2009. 6. The first respondent shall take appropriate steps for an adjudication as directed above, with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent at the earliest possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of WP(C).No.24895 of 2010-J. 5 receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Needless to say that recovery of further amounts due shall be made only subject to result of such adjudication. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-