IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14417 of 2008(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. BINDUKUMAR,KUZHUVELIL HOUSE,SOORANAD NORTH, ANAYADI PO, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV.MR.K.RAVEENDRAN MR.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRTANSPORT OFFICER , PATHANAMTHITTA 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUR , KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SOORANAD NORTH, KUNNATHUR NORTH,KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM. 4. SAJ THOMAS, S/O.M.T.THOMAS,MUNDUKUNNEL HOUSE, THIRUVALLA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.BABU FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. MR.SIBY MATHEW FOR R4 MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14417/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19.6.07 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 1.7.07 FROM PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE OF REVENUE RECOVERY DT. 15.4.08. R4(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. R4(b):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 14417 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the registered owner of the contract carriage bearing No. KL.3A-1191. The case of the petitioner is that he had sold the vehicle to the 4th respondent on 10.11.1995 and thereafter, it was the 4th respondent, who owned and possessed and was operating it. It is also stated that the petitioner had communicated the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the first respondent. While so, the petitioner was proceeded against with coercive steps as borne by Ext. P3, seeking to realise more than Rs. 4 lakhs, stated as dues under the Motor Vehicles Tax for the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2007. Even though the petitioner objected to the course pursued by the respondents, bringing the true state of affairs to their notice, it was simply ignored and the concerned respondent proceeded with further coercive steps, which made the W.P.(C) No. 14417 OF 2008 2 petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. The first respondent has filed a statement contending that the petitioner continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle and that no 'G Form' was submitted for the period in question and hence the petitioner was very much liable to satisfy the tax liability, particularly in view of the mandate under Section 9 of the Act. 3. The fourth respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit stating that he has purchased the vehicle on 10.11.1995 and was possessing, enjoying and operating the said vehicle ever since then. It is further stated that the vehicle was however stolen on 05.01.2005 and it was duly informed to the S.I of Police, followed by another complaint filed before the Dy.S.P, Thiruvalla, as borne by Ext. R4(a). The position was simultaneously informed to the first respondent as well, requesting him to grant exemption from payment of tax, as per Ext. R4(b). The 4th respondent further submits in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that, even after the above W.P.(C) No. 14417 OF 2008 3 proceedings and despite submission of necessary 'G Forms', the concerned respondents were taking steps to recover the alleged tax, which is stated as not correct or sustainable. The learned Counsel, placing reliance on the Circular No.31 of 1989 issued by the Transport Commissioner submits that, once the transfer of the vehicle to the transferee is admitted and the transferee admits the liability to pay the tax, the transferor is liable to be spared . The factual position in this regard has been conceded from the part of the first respondent as well, as stated in paragraph No.4 of the statement filed before this Court. 4. Considering the fact that the 4th respondent has entered appearance and filed an affidavit before this Court, acknowledging transfer of the vehicle as purchased by him on 10.11.1995 and stating that he was possessing, enjoying and operating the vehicle, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the above Circular. In the said circumstances, all coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P3 stands set aside and the remedy of the first respondent is to proceed against the 4th respondent in view of W.P.(C) No. 14417 OF 2008 4 the admission made as to the ownership, possession and control over the vehicle from 10.11.1995. 5. However, coming to the question of liability and the steps for realisation from the 4th respondent, as mentioned already, there is a case for the 4th respondent that the vehicle was stolen on 05.01.2005 and that necessary complaint was filed before the Police, followed by further proceedings preferred before the higher authorities as borne by Ext.R4(a); that the position was duly intimated to the first respondent requesting him for tax exemption as per Ext. R4(b) and further that the 4th respondent has submitted necessary 'G Forms' in this regard. It was in the said circumstances that a detailed order was passed by this Court on 15.06.2009 directing to get further instructions as to the submissions made by the 4th respondent, with reference to the above proceedings. 6. Even though the case was adjourned twice thereafter, no such instructions have been obtained and no additional statement or counter affidavit has been filed in this regard. This means, the specific pleadings raised by the 4th respondent W.P.(C) No. 14417 OF 2008 5 in the counter affidavit filed by him stand un-rebutted, which hence is liable to be treated as admission requiring no further proof by virtue of Sec. 58 of the Evidence Act. 7. However, this Court finds that an opportunity can be granted to both the first respondent as well as the 4th respondent in connection with the liability to pay the tax for the period from 01.01.2005 . Any such proceedings shall be pursued by the first respondent only after giving notice to the 4th respondent providing adequate opportunity of hearing to substantiate the position as now contended before this Court, with reference to Ext. R4(a) and R4(b). The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk