IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 30898 of 2004(C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.ABOOBACKER, VEETTILA VALAPPIL, MATTATHIKKAD, P.O.KOTTATHARA, MANNARKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TRISSUR. 2. SRI.R.RAJESH, S/O.RAMANAN, VISYA ACADAMY, AGALI, MANNARKKAD. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MANNARKKAD. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JAIBY PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARDON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30898 of 2004(C) ------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT SALE DATED 19.09.2003 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 24.09.2003 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE (U/S-7) Dt. NIL EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE (U/S-34) Dt. NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30898 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Writ petition was filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of the motor vehicles tax in respect of Stage Carriage bearing Regn.No.KL-8 100. The contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner had sold the vehicle to the 2nd respondent, and that, in terms of the agreement between the parties, for the period in question, it was the 2nd respondent who was liable to pay the tax. 2. Taking note of the said submission, when the matter came up for orders before this Court on 20/10/2004, respondents were directed to seize the vehicle and sell it for realisation of the tax due. 3. Subsequently, when the matter came up for orders before this court on 7/8/2007, the respondents reported that the vehicle was no longer available and that the same was already dismantled and sold by the person who was in possession of the same. Taking note of the said submission, this Court directed the respondents to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings WPC No. 30898/04 :2 : and now this case is coming up for final hearing. 4. As the registered owner of the vehicle had the absolute liability to pay tax, respondents were justified in proceeding against the petitioner. It was considering the submission that the vehicle was sold before the liability was incurred that this court passed the aforesaid interim order dated 20/10/2004 to seize the vehicle. Since the vehicle was no longer available, that course could not be proceeded any further. In such circumstances, respondents had no other option but to proceed against the petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle. In such circumstances, the challenge against the recovery proceedings has to fail. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp