IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12810 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- ALIAS P.Y., S/O.YACOB P.P., PANDALIL HOUSE, ORRAMANA P.O., RAMAMANGALAM (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.KRISHNAN NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA , REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ROAD TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 6. K.V.KURIAKOSE, S/O.VARGHESE, KANJIRAKKATTU HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 12810/087 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.8.90. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE JOINT RTO, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA ON 6.9.04. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE petitioner TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON 16.12.04. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.C4/KL7/4854/06/EM ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.10.06 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 12.03.06 ALONG WITRH POSTAL RECEIPT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 12810 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner owned an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL 7-4584 which was purchased in 1989. According to the petitioner, he later sold the vehicle to the 6th respondent as per Ext.P1 agreement. However, the 6th respondent did not take steps to get the ownership and registration transferred in his name and therefore the petitioner continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle. As registered owner, the petitioner continued to get demand notices for payment of motor vehicle tax in respect of that autorickshaw. Earlier on a representation made by the petitioner, on the intervention of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the 6th respondent paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner towards the reimbursement of the tax paid by him. In the meanwhile, the vehicle met with an accident in 1997 and the vehicle was seized by the police registering a crime. A motor accident claim also arose from the same. From the police station the 6th respondent took interim custody of the vehicle, allegedly without knowledge of the WPC :12810/07 -:2:- petitioner. Again the petitioner received Ext.P5 notice for payment of motor vehicle tax. Although the petitioner filed Exts.P6 and P7, the same did not evoke any response. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. to call for the entire records of the petitioner's case and all action taken by the respondents in pursuance of Exts.P2, P4, P6 and P7. ii. Writ or direction directing the respondents 1 to 5 to trace out the above said vehicle Reg. No.KL7 4854(Autorickshaw) which was in the name of the petitioner and subsequently sold to K.V. Kuriakose and get other details of the above vehicle; iii. Writ or direction declaring that the above vehicle is transferred in the name of the 6th respondent and he is liable to pay the vehicle tax; and declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the tax which he has already paid;” 2. Petitioner's contention is that, as proved by the fact that the 6th respondent took custody of the vehicle from the police station after the accident, it is clear that the 6th respondent is the owner of the vehicle and therefore he alone is liable to pay tax in respect of the vehicle. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. On 08.08.07, I had issued a direction to the respondents to seize the vehicle and proceed against the vehicle for recovery of the tax. An affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent to the effect that in spite WPC :12810/07 -:3:- of his best efforts, the vehicle could not be traced. 4. Despite the fact that the 6th respondent has not filed any counter affidavit controverting the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had sold the vehicle to the 6th respondent, going by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act and Rules the petitioner continues to be liable to pay Motor Vehicle Tax as the registered owner of the vehicle. However, insofar as the 6th respondent does not dispute the fact that he had purchased the vehicle, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: For motor vehicle tax in respect the vehicle in question, the 2nd respondent shall first proceed against the 6th respondent. Only if the tax cannot be recovered from the 6th respondent, the 2nd respondent shall proceed against the petitioner for the tax. This can be done as long as the petitioner continues to be the registered owner. Respondents 2 to 5 shall also make all efforts to trace out the vehicle and seize the same to proceed appropriately in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb WPC :12810/07 -:4:-