IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 33665 of 2001(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.P.MOHANDAS, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, CHENGOTTU POONTHOTTATHIL, P.O.RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 2. V.P.MANOHARAN, S/O.JOSEPH, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, P.O.FAROOK COLLEGE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOZHIKKODE. BY SHRI.K.P.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 33665/2001 ORDER ON CMP 54965/2001 IN O.P.NO. 33665/2001 DISMISSED. 18/01/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 23/05/2000 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT. P2 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11/10/2001 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11/10/2001 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- O.P. No. 33665 of 2001 ------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Since petitioner claims that the vehicle, in respect of which tax demanded is sought to be recovered from petitioner, was sold to 2nd respondent, this Court vide interim order dated 07/11/2001 directed the respondents to proceed for recovery against 2nd respondent. It is not known as to what happened in the course of these years as order was passed as back on 07/11/2001. Recovery of motor vehicle tax is permissible from the registered owner as well as from the person who is in possession and control of the vehicle. Even though notice was issued to 2nd respondent, he has not responded. Obviously, therefore, petitioner’s claim has to be accepted. In the circumstances, this original petition is disposed of with direction to respondents 1 and 3 to proceed for recovery against 2nd respondent and if recovery is not possible for want of assets for 2nd respondent, then recovery will be made against petitioner, if petitioner continues to be the registered owner on record. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg