IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 22086 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- N.VELAPPAN,S/O.NEELAKANTA PILLAI, 21/TC 1745(1),VIGHNESH BHAVAN, KARAMANA P.O., MANAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.PERUMAL,S/O.KOLLAPPA PILLAI, 371/A,THIRUMAL COMPLEX, CHETTIKULAM (JN), CAMP ROAD, NAGARCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. BY GOVT. PLEADE SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R4 SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22086 of 2009(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD 24.5.2005 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SALE INTIMATION LETTER DTD.28.9.2005 EXT.P2(A) : COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE MEMO DTD.4.6.2008 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DTD.26.7.2008 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.4.3.2009 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DTD.26.3.2009 EXT.P6(A) : COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE MEMO DTD.2.4.2009 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 22086 of 2009-E ---------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was the owner of the Tata Benz lorry bearing No.KL-01 B 4035, is aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondents 1 to 3 for realization of the amount stated as due from the petitioner under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, by invoking the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by Ext.P5. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the transfer and ownership of the vehicle to the fourth respondent as per Ext.P1 sale agreement was duly communicated to the first respondent, despite which the liability has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner, without proceeding against the vehicle or the actual owner, ie, the fourth respondent. 3. The fourth respondent has a filed counter affidavit contending that the said respondent has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the petitioner; that Ext.P1 is not a genuine document and further that the said respondent has never purchased W.P(C) No. 22086 of 2009-E 2 the vehicle from the petitioner, as alleged. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit referring to the actual facts and figures including that, at no point of time had the petitioner submitted the necessary records as to the transfer of the vehicle in the required form. It is also stated that, the vehicle was stated as sold to a person ie, the fourth respondent, who is a resident of 'Tamil Nadu' and that, for enabling the such transfer, necessary application for 'no objection certificate' in Form 28 in triplicate had to be submitted, also by remitting the prescribed fees, which however has not been satisfied. It is also contended that the petitioner still continues to be a 'registered owner' of the vehicle and that the liability is very much there for the petitioner being the registered owner, to satisfy the tax liability, in view of the specific provisions under Section 9 of the Act. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in Vibhuraj Vs. Joseph (2007(1) KLT 853), wherein it has been held that the liability to pay tax is joint and several on the registered owner, person who is in possession or the person who is in control of the vehicle and further that the registered owner is W.P(C) No. 22086 of 2009-E 3 liable, if after sale, he still remains the registered owner in the R.C Book. In the above circumstances, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the Writ Petition. Hence interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability under Ext.P5, by way of 'three' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 25th of this month; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 25th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. However, it is made clear that, if the petitioner does not honour the commitment as above, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with further steps against the petitioner, for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge