IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1589 of 2007 SHEO LAKHAN RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 16.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Even if the stand of the petitioner is accepted that the vehicle in question was sold and the ownership was transferred in the name of one Sant Bilash Rai on 25.6.1992 the claim of the outstanding road tax is due for the period 1.10.1990 to 30.6.1995. In other words it includes the period when the petitioner was the owner of the Bus. Another aspect which emerges from the counter affidavit is that the ownership or the name of the purchaser has not been recorded in the Owner Book by the competent DTO till date. The name of the petitioner still continues on the record. Contention of the petitioner is that the Bus was sold with the understanding that all the liabilities past and present shall be of the purchaser and the purchaser has also filed an affidavit before the certificate officer certifying about the purchase of the vehicle. In view of above stated position it will be in the interest of the petitioner as well as the purchaser to appear before the certificate officer with a common strategy and decide as to what amount is payable by the petitioner and what amount is payable by the purchaser or the purchaser alone. That fact will emerge in the petition which may be filed by the petitioner and the purchaser before the certificate officer. - 2 - In the above stated situation no interference is required with the proceeding as such. But if the petitioner has any serious legal objection with regard to the continuation of the proceeding he still has remedy under section 9 of the Act. If the petitioner appears before the certificate officer within four weeks from today and files his petition or affidavit as the case may be, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner till then. This writ application stands disposed of with the liberty above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)