IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23961 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BINU. P.N, AGED 29, S/O.NARAYANAN, PANGAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARTHUNGAL P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA OFFICE AT CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, SUB R.T. OFFICE , CHERTHALA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 23961 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing No.KL.8Z 3351, which was operated on the route Alappuzha – Cherthala. According to the petitioner, three bridges on the said route were under re-construction and the service was to be conducted through a deviated route by running 30 k.m. in excess. This led the petitioner to financial difficulties and consequently there was default in payment of motor vehicles tax due with respect to the vehicle. In Ext.P1 the petitioner was granted instalment facility by the Government with respect to tax payable for the quarters ending on 31-3-2010 and on 30-6-2010. But according to the petitioner, even before payment of the first instalment the 2nd respondent took custody of the vehicle alleging non-payment of tax. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of producing Ext.P1 order issued by the Government, the vehicle was not released. Hence the W.P.(C) No. 23961/2010 2 petitioner seeks a direction for release of the vehicle and to permit him to pay the arrears in terms of Ext.P1. 2. In a statement filed by the 1st respondent it is mentioned that, tax with respect to the period from1-10- 2005 to 30-6-2007 was in arrears and Revenue Recovery steps were initiated for recovery of the said amount. It is also stated that when the vehicle was seized and kept in custody intimation was received from the Tahsildar regarding the order issued by the Government for release of the vehicle and accordingly the vehicle was released. With respect to tax due for the quarter ending on 31-3- 2010, the petitioner obtained yet another order from the Government allowing instalment facility, which is produced as Ext.R1(d) along with the statement. Under that order the petitioner was permitted to remit 1/3rd of the tax for the quarter ending 31-3-2010 on or before 10-3-2010, and the remaining in two equal monthly instalments. But the petitioner had failed to remit the two instalments directed therein. Under the above circumstances, on 28-7-2010 the vehicle was again seized and taken into custody. Thereafter, W.P.(C) No. 23961/2010 3 the petitioner produced Ext.P1 order before the 1st respondent. It was noticed that the petitioner had obtained repeated orders from the Government permitting instalment payment, with respect to tax due for the same period. In fact the Government had issued a general circular, prohibiting repeated requests for instalment facilities, suppressing similar facility, which was granted on an earlier occasions. Exts.R1(e) and (f) are the Government orders in this regard. It is stated that on the basis of the above directions, the 1st respondent had already addressed the Government to clarify as to whether the benefits granted under Ext.P1 Government Order need be provided to the petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that on the basis of such request made, the Government had clarified through a general circular that the Regional Transport Officers need not permit payment of vehicle tax in instalments, if the facility for payment of such arrear in instalment was granted on any earlier occasion. Under such circumstances, contention of the respondents is that the vehicle tax could not be accepted by virtue of W.P.(C) No. 23961/2010 4 Ext.P1 order. 3. Having considered the factual situation and contentions on both sides, it is evident that motor vehicles tax with respect to the vehicle in question is in arrears due for various periods. The vehicle is now under custody of the 2nd respondent, which is seized by virtue of section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I do not find any reason to interfere with the seizure and detention, because admittedly tax with respect to various periods is in arrears. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that applicaton for instalment was submitted with respect to various periods during which the vehicle was in custody of the 2nd respondent. 4. Having taken note of the facts as stated above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire arrears due within a reasonable time in instalments. In this regard the respondents need not be considered any existing orders of the Government granting instalment facility nor any order which may be issued in future in relation to arrears of tax due. W.P.(C) No. 23961/2010 5 5. If the petitioner remits the entire arrears in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15-11- 2010 and on or before 15th day of the succeeding months along with additional tax if any due with respect to the period in default apart from the instalment facility granted by the Government, the same shall be accepted. 6. It is further directed that the vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner on remittance of two monthly instalments as directed above, on condition of the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he will not alienate or part with the vehicle in any manner until the entire liability is discharged. 7. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the vehicle as well as properties of the petitioner, if any default is committed. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.