IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26356 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED AJMAL, S/O.KUNJUMARAKKAR, CHENNAMPILLY HOUSE, CHERANALLORE P.O., COCHIN-34. BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KHADERKUNJU, S/O. PAREED, ANJILIMOOTTIL HOUSE, ASHOKAPURAM KARA, ALUVA. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-30. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.26356 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 memo issued by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, demanding payment of Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to vehicle bearing Regn.No:KEV/7384, for the period from 1.10.2003 to 30.9.2009, amounting to Rs.77,500/-. According to the petitioner the vehicle in question was sold by him to the 1st respondent as early as on 30.10.2002, by virtue of Ext.P1 Sale Agreement, and he is not the owner of the vehicle after 30.10.2002. He further contended that tax due till the date of sale has already cleared by him and the 1st respondent alone is liable for payment of the tax now demanded. On receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 request to the 2nd respondent informing the above said aspects, and requesting to take steps to collect the arrears of tax from the 1st respondent. Complaint of the petitioner is that without taking into consideration of Ext.P3 the 2nd respondent is now proceeding with steps for realisation against the petitioner. 2. It is conceded by the petitioner that registration of the vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner, even now. As per provisions contained in the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, the W.P.(C).26356/09 2 registered owner of the vehicle as well as the person in possession of the vehicle are equally liable to pay tax due with respect to the vehicle. Hence it could not be said that the petitioner is not liable. At the same time if the vehicle is in possession of the 1strespondent and he is using the vehicle, it can also be realised from the 1st respondent or it can be realised by coercive steps taken against the vehicle for its seizure and sale. 3. Under such circumstances it is only just and proper for the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation with notice issued to the petitioner as well as to the 1st respondent, before proceeding with coercive steps of recovery against the petitioner. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and to take a decision on Ext.P3, with opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner as well as to the 1st respondent. A decision in this regard may be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that further steps for recovering the amount from the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken as above by the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb