IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35168 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P. RAJESH KUMAR, S/O.BAPPUKUTTY, PERIYATTIL HOUSE, KOTTAMPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.O.D.SIVADAS MR.K.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 2. C. SANKUNNI NAMBEESAN, S/O.V.SANKARAN NAMBEESAN, "ANJALI", KOTTAMPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35168 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 memo issued demanding payment of Motor Vehicle Tax with respect to the vehicle KLW-2350 due for the period from 1.4.2005 to 1.11.2005. It is stated that on an earlier occasion the petitioner was served with another notice issued by the 1st respondent, as per Letter No:C2/KL-W 2350/01 dt. 22.5.2001. To the said notice the petitioner had submitted reply as evidenced from Ext.P2, stating that he had already sold the vehicle to the 2nd respondent as early as on 5.6.1998 as per Ext.P1 agreement and therefore the petitioner is not liable for payment of the tax amount. But without considering the said objection Ext.P3 is now issued. Even after receipt of Ext.P3 the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanation refuting the liability. But the same has not been considered by the 1st respondent. Petitioner apprehends coercive steps of recovery pursuant to Ext.P3. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that from the date of sale of the vehicle, he is not in ownership or possession of the vehicle and that he is not liable for payment of the tax amount. Yet another contention is that the vehicle has already completed W.P.(C).35168/09-M 2 15 years in the year 2001 and hence it could not be put to use. Therefore the demand now raised is unsustainable. 3. It is evident from Ext.P3 memo that the petitioner is directed either to pay the dues or to state reasons for non- payment, within the stipulated time. Contention of the petitioner is that such memo is issued without adverting to the objections already submitted. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter needs examination afresh by the 1st respondent in view of the contentions raised. 4. Therefore Ext.P3 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to conduct an adjudication based on Ext.P2 and P4 objections submitted by the petitioner, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as to the 2nd respondent. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Such decision shall be intimated to the petitioner through a proceedings of the 1st respondent. 5. Needless to say that the petitioner has got a remedy by way of appeal if he is aggrieved by any such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb