IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 19174 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAVEENDRAN DHARMASEELAN, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, "P.V.HOUSE", KAILATHUKONAM, KURAKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 104. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, R.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, AGED 69 YEARS, "P.V.HOUSE", KAILATHUKONAM, KURAKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 104. BY ADVS. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ, SRI.RENJIT GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ATTINGAL-695 101. 2. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, "SREEKUMAR BUNGALOW", THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 317. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 19174 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 memos issued by the 1st respondent, demanding payment of motor vehicles tax due for the period 1-4-2007 to 30-6-2010, with respect to vehicle bearing No.KL-01-H-5187, which is a contract carriage. 2. The petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle in question. According to him, the vehicle was sold to the 2nd respondent on 11-2-2007 as per Ext.P2 sale agreement. The fact regarding sale of the vehicle was intimated to the 1st respondent through Ext.P3 letter, which was acknowledged by the 1st respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P3(a) postal acknowledge card. Contention of the petitioner is that from the date of the alleged sale the 2nd respondent alone is liable for payment of the motor vehicles tax and the demand against the petitioner is unsustainable. It is further contended that, before issuing the memos no W.P.(C) No. 19174/2010 2 notice was issued and he was not given any opportunity to refute the liability. 3. Heard; learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that an adjudication is necessary before proceeding with steps for realization of arrears of motor vehicles tax. I am not expressing any view regarding liability of the petitioner or 2nd respondent. The matter need be decided with due notice issued to the 2nd respondent and also considering the aspect of possession of the vehicle during the relevant period, with due advertence to the relevant provisions in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 5. Under the above circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed not to proceed with any further steps of recovery pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 till an adjudication on the matter is conducted after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent will provide W.P.(C) No. 19174/2010 3 an opportunity to the parties to produce records and documents if any available in support of their claims. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 1st respondent and intimated to the petitioner as well as to the 2nd respondent, as early as possible at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.