IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11507 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- KRISHNAN.V., S/O.RAMAN, VEDITHARAKKAL HOUSE, BEKAL P.O., KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.MANHU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. JOINT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANHANGAD. 2. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND, KANNUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.PAULSON C. VARGHESE, SC, KMTWWF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 11507 OF 2008 T ==================== Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that he is the transferee of the stage carriage KL 13 L 8358. According to the petitioner, the transfer was on 17th of December 2007 and he refers to Ext.P1 to substantiate this contention. It is argued that for the period prior to the transfer, the amount due to the 2nd respondent was in arrears, for which only the previous registered owner can be made liable. Petitioner submits that in view of the liability of the previous owner, clearance certificate is not issued, as a result of which tax is not accepted by the 1st respondent. He has also made Ext.P2 application before the 2nd respondent requesting to take action for quantifying the liability for the period prior to the transfer. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that irrespective of the transfer that occurred in December, 2007, if the petitioner was the defacto owner for the period prior thereto, still the 2nd respondent is entitled to proceed against the petitioner to realise the amount. 3. In any case that is a matter to adjudicated by the 2nd WPC 11507/08 :2 : respondent before whom the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 application in this behalf. Therefore, I direct that the 2nd respondent shall take a decision on Ext.P2 with notice to the petitioner and also the previous owner. But however, until the liability is so fastened on the petitioner, it is not proper to refuse to accept tax in respect of the vehicle. 4. Therefore, I direct that the 1st respondent shall accept tax from the petitioner in respect of the stage carriage bearing Regn.No.KL 13 L-8358. However, I direct that such acceptance of tax will be subject to the outcome of the decision taken by the 2nd respondent on Ext.P2. 5. Needless to say that this judgment will not cover the liability of the petitioner for payment of the amount due to the 2nd respondent for the period subsequent to 17th of December, 2007. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp