IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2299 of 2005(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PRABHAN S/O. APPUKUTTAN, LALITHA MANDIRAM, THETTICHIRA, KURUKKADA P.O., ATTINGAL VIA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V. SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, CHIRAYINKIL. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ATTINGAL. 3. SATHEESH KUMAR, KURAVANVILA VEEDU, KOONTHALLOOR, CHIRAYINKIL, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. *4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *(IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 21/03/2005 IN I.A.NO.3929/2005.) SHRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON 18/09/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 2299/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE NO.KEE 2738. P2 : COPY OFAGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04/12/1997. P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10/02/1998. P4 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12/11/2003. P5 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26/02/2005. P6 : COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 08/03/2005. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- WP(C) No. 2299 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the registered owner of a Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KEE 2738. The vehicle was transferred in his favour on 02/11/1993 as evident from Ext.P1. Later, he sold the vehicle on 04/12/1997 to the 3rd respondent under Ext.P2 sale agreement. He intimated the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the registering authority as per Ext.P3 representation dated 10/02/1998. Later, he has been served with Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice by the 1st respondent, Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), demanding an amount of Rs.46,255/-, which is the motor vehicle tax due for the vehicle for the period from 01/01/2001 to 30/09/2003. After filing the writ petition, he has been served with a notice by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, and petitioner has sought for stay of that notice pending disposal of the writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, stay was granted on condition of WP(C) No.2299/2005 -2- payment of Rs.10,000/- on or before 31/03/2005. The petitioner submitted that he has already paid that amount. He submits that the revenue recovery notices issued to him are unsustainable in law and as he is no longer the owner of the vehicle, recovery has to be made from the 3rd respondent, who is the present owner of the vehicle. So he prayed for the following reliefs : “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records leading to Exihibit P4 and quash the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondents 1 and 2 to initiate steps against the 3rd respondent to recover the motor vehicle tax in respect of vehicle bearing registration number KEE 2738 for the period from 01/01/2001 to 30/09/2003. iii) and to issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.” 2. The transfer of ownership of vehicle is covered by Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The relevant portion of the said section reads as follows :- “Section 50 :- Transfer of ownership:- (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,- (a) the transferor shall, - (i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact WP(C) No.2299/2005 -3- of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee.” The above quoted provision shows that the transferor has to report in the prescribed manner the fact of transfer to the registering authority within fourteen days of the transfer. That means the petitioner should have reported the transfer before 18/12/1997 in the prescribed manner. The prescription is contained under Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The relevant portion of the said Rule reads as follows :- “Rule 55 : Transfer of ownership :- (1) Where the ownership of a motor vehicle is transferred, the transferor shall report the fact of transfer in Form 29 to the registering authorities concerned in whose jurisdiction the transferor and the transferee reside or have their places of business.” The form prescribed shows that the notice of transfer of ownership under Form 29 should be submitted in duplicate before the registering authority. So the filing of a representation in the nature of Ext.P3 will not satisfy the requirement of law. Therefore, if the registration of the vehicle is not transferred, the petitioner should blame himself. As long as the petitioner WP(C) No.2299/2005 -4- remains the registered owner of the vehicle, he is liable to pay the motor vehicle tax in view of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, which reads as follows :- “Section - 9 : Liability to payment of tax by persons succeeding to the ownership, possession or control of motor vehicles :- (1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax. (2) Nothing contained in Sub Section (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability to pay the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle.” In view of the above position, I feel, nothing is illegal with the impugned revenue recovery proceedings. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg