IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 3837 of 2003(F) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ B.S.MANI, AGED S/O.SANKARAN, BLAPPADIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGOM, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, THEKKUMBHGOM VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA. 4. N.D.BABY, NALAKARA HOUSE, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI - 20. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SMT.N.SUDHADEVI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.6762& I.A.NO.4674/2003 IN OP NO.3837/2003 DISMISSED: 8.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT DT.29.3.98 BY THE PETITIONER WITH R4. P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.4.1.99 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO R1. P3: TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY R1. P4: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DT.28.9.02 ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.14.11.02 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO R1. P6: TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY R1'S OFFICE. P7: TRUE COPY OF RR NOTICE DT.18.1.03 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.3837 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax on the ground that he has sold the vehicle which is a stage carriage. Since Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act authorises recovery from registered owner or the person in possession and control of the vehicle, recovery can be continued against the petitioner if petitioner continues to be the registered owner on record. However, if petitioner traces the vehicle and informs the Police or the Motor Vehicle Department, such vehicle should be seized and sold in recovery proceedings first and thereafter only recovery should be continued against the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to proceed against the purchaser in accordance with the agreement. However, tax can be recovered for the period 1.10.1998 to 31.12.1999 as intimation of sale was given by the petitioner to the department only after this period. The O.P. is dismissed with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms