IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36263 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.ANDRU, THAYYULLAPARAMBATH, P.O. MOKERI, VIA- KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.VATHSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOINT R.T.O., VATAKARA, MINI CIVIL STATION, P.O.VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, VATAKARA, MINI CIVIL STATION, (P.O.) VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. V.P.MURALEEDHARAN, RESIDING AT VANMERI MEETHAL, ONJIYAM AMSOM, VELLIKULANGARA DESAM, VELLIKULANGARA, VATAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. MESSERS SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE & COMPANY LTD., SREEPADAM, CALICUT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36263 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 Revenue Recovery notice issued at the instance of the first respondent for realisation of the amount due towards the Motor Vehicles Tax in respect of the stage carriage bearing No. KL - 11/L 6297, for the period from January, 2008 to May 2008. The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of the financial constraints, he had sold the bus to the 3rd respondent on 25.04.2007 as per Ext.P1 agreement and further that the bus was in the custody of the 4th respondent/financier, at the time of Ext.P1 agreement, due to the default committed in effecting the repayment. 2. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner still continues as the RC owner of the vehicle in question and that by virtue of specific mandate under Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability is very much cast upon the registered owner of the vehicle. 3. The submission made by the learned Government Pleader as above, as to the ownership of the vehicle, as registered in the name of the petitioner, is not disputed from the part of the petitioner. This being the WP(C) No.36263/2009 2 position, there is absolutely no merit in the contention raised in the Writ Petition as to the challenge against Ext.P2. If the petitioner has actually parted with the possession and sold the vehicle to somebody else (with regard to which no opinion is being expressed in view of the admitted hire purchase agreement with the 4th respondent), the remedy of the petitioner is something else. 4. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire liability under Ext.P2, in 'six' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this month, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance and if any default is committed by the petitioner in this regard, the 1st and 2nd respondents will at liberty to proceed with further coercive steps from the stage where it stands now. It is also made clear that it will be open for the petitioner to proceed against the actual person concerned if he has parted with the possession and ownership of the petitioner by pursuing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc