IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 26088 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.T.JAMES, S/O. THOMAS, THALACHIRA HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (H.Q)(REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJALOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA 4. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER(CZ-II), KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. KUNJUMUHAMMAD, S/O. O.S.ALI, KADAVATH HOUSE, THRIKKANDIYUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO 4 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND R5 ON 5.5.95. P2: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.7.5.95 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. P3: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT.25.4.2004 ISSUED FROM ST.GEORGE'S HOSPITAL VAZHAKULAM, IN MUVATTUPUZHA. P4: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S.7 OF THE R.R. ACT ON 13.2.2004 BY R1. P5: .DO. DT.25.2.04 .DO. P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 16881/04 DT.15.6.04. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.26088 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Even though petitioner was given an opportunity vide Ext.P6 judgment to trace the vehicle for recovery by attachment and sale of the same, petitioner has not been able to trace the vehicle. Government Pleader reported that petitioner continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle and therefore, he is liable to pay the tax under Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. In the circumstances, recovery can be continued against the registered owner on record. The W.P. is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to file suit against the purchaser for recovery of tax after payment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms