IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37352 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALEXANDER NINAN, THANNIMOOTTIL VEEDU, VENKURINJI P.O., MUKKOOTTUTHARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. TAHSILDAR,RANNI. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAMULA. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. SAJU V., JOY, VADAKEKUDIYIRUPPIL HOUSE, KUDAPPUKARA P.O., UZHAVOOR. ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 37352/2010. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30.09.2002 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 07.09.2007 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 34 EXHIBIT P2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 06.09.2007 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 196/2007. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, RAMAPURAM. EXHIBIT P4(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07.05.2007 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 37352 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against him under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to realise the tax arrears in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL 01/K 5042 for the period 2004-2007. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner had sold the above vehicle to the 5th respondent as per Ext.P1 agreement and the position was duly communicated to the departmental authority as required under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The 5th respondent has entered appearance before this Court and filed a counter affidavit conceding the factual position as highlighted by the petitioner, as to the transfer of the vehicle by the petitioner to the 5th respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that, the 5th respondent was having the ownership and possession over the vehicle only for a period of 10 days as he sold the vehicle to one Somarajan on 04.10.2002. This being the position, no liability could be sought to be mulcted upon the shoulders of the 5th respondent as well, submits the learned counsel. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader, with reference to the contents of the statement filed before this Court submits that, the 2 WP(C) No.37352/2009 petitioner, admittedly is the registered owner of the vehicle and this being the position, the liability of the petitioner cannot be sought to be avoided, by virtue of the mandate under Section 9 (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The learned Government Pleader submits that, there is absolutely no proof with regard to the communication stated as given as to the factum of transfer of vehicle by the petitioner to the 5th respondent. 4. The admitted pleadings and proceedings before this Court reveal that the 5th respondent had purchased the vehicle from the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P1 sale agreement. Eventhough Ext.P1 cannot be the conclusive proof so as to ascertain the factum of transfer of ownership of the vehicle, such instance of sale having been admitted by the 5th respondent, it no longer remains to be a fact which requires to be proved. Since the transfer of ownership from the petitioner is admitted by the 5th respondent stating that, he become the owner of the vehicle with effect from 30.09.2002 (though it is subsequently stated as transferred to somebody else after ten days), there is considerable force in the submissions made by the petitioner that the liability in respect of the year 2004-2007 cannot be fastened on the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the scheme of the statute, particularly the liability contemplated by virtue of Section 9(2) is in respect of the liability, which is outstanding as on the date of transfer. 3 WP(C) No.37352/2009 5. In any view of the matter, taking note of the submission made from the part of the learned Government Pleader that the authorities might be permitted to pursue the steps against the concerned vehicle, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the concerned respondents to proceed against the vehicle bearing No. KL 01/K 5042, to cause the same to be seized and sold in public auction for realisation of the liability in question. If any further proceedings are intended to be taken or proceeded with by the departmental authorities, the same shall be only after issuance of proper notice to all concerned, after giving an opportunity of hearing. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc