IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8131 of 2011(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABOOBACKER SIDDIK, NADUVILAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), NORTH PARUR-683513. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NORTH PARUR-683513. 3. MOHAMMED ASLAM, S/O.ABOOBACKER, JUMSEENA COTTAGE, EDAKKAD, MUZHUPPILANGADI, KANNUR-670673. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8131 of 2011-N ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P9 notice for realising motor vehicles tax due with respect to vehicle bearing No.KL-7/P-2727, for the period from 1.1.2008 to 30.6.2010, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. On receipt of a memo issued by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P5 demanding payment of tax, the petitioner had submitted objection as per Ext.P6, contending that the vehicle in question was already sold to the 3rd respondent as early as on 5.3.2007 and that the petitioner is no longer liable to pay the tax demanded. It is also the case of the petitioner that the transfer was duly intimated to the 2nd respondent. But no action was taken for effecting transfer of ownership of the vehicle. 3. Considering Ext.P6 objections, the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P7 reply. It is stated that under Section 9(2) W.P(C) No.8131 of 2011-N 2 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1975, mere transfer of possession will not absolve the registered owner from the liability. The registered owner has got a primary liability to pay the tax. Pointing out certain decision of this Court it is observed that the petitioner could not be exonerated from the liability. However, the petitioner further submitted a reply as per Ext.P8 raising more or less the same contentions. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the matter on affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or to the 3rd respondent, the recovery steps were now initiated. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 5. Going by the scheme of the statute, it is evident that a remedy of appeal is provided against Ext.P7, as contemplated under Section 23 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. But, contention of the petitioner is that there was no adjudication conducted by the 2nd respondent with notice to the petitioner or to the 3rd respondent, and W.P(C) No.8131 of 2011-N 3 hence Ext.P7 is per se illegal. But it is pertinent to note that the 2nd respondent had considered the contentions and taken a decision not to exonerate the petitioner from the liability, in view of the provisions contained in the Act. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner, if has got any grievance against Ext.P7, is a liberty to pursue the matter before the appellate authority. 6. Confronted with such situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to approach the appellate authority. On that premise he seeks for a direction from this Court to the appellate authority to consider the appeal which will be filed immediately. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file statutory appeal against Ext.P7 before the Deputy Transport Commissioner having jurisdiction, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such appeal is filed within the time stipulated, the appellate W.P(C) No.8131 of 2011-N 4 authority concerned shall consider the same as if it is an appeal filed within the time prescribed. The appeal if any filed shall be disposed of after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd respondent herein, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such appeal. 8. Till such time a decision is taken by the appellate authority as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.20,000/- within one month from today and also subject to condition of the petitioner filing the appeal as directed above, within the time stipulated. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.8131 of 2011-N 5