IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12749 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FIROZ ALAVI, S/O.AHAMMAD HAJI, THAZHATH VEETTIL, O.K.MURI P.O., KOOTTALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.MARS FINANCE, NO.53, ERULAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHAJAHAN, SAFETY AUTO CONSULTANTS, PAYYANANGADI, THIRUR P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 101. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, WAYANAD, KALPETTA, PIN-673 121. BY ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12749 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Stage carriage bearing No.KL-03-N-3908 belonging to the petitioner, which was operated on the strength of Ext.P3 temporary permit, was attached and taken into custody by Sub Court, Tirur, on 18.10.2010, in O.S.No.172 of 2011. The vehicle was released to the petitioner on the strength of an order passed by that Court on 4.3.2011. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to Sub Court, Manjeri. Subsequent to the release of the vehicle, the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent for getting temporary permit. But the request was not considered on the allegation of default in payment of arrears of motor vehicle tax due for the quarters beginning from 1.10.2010 upto 31.3.2011. 2. According to the petitioner, almost for the entire period for which the demand is made, the vehicle was in the custody of the Sub Court and the permit of the vehicle had expired as early as on 26.10.2010. Since the vehicle was 2 W.P.(C).No.12749 of 2011 kept idle in custody of the Court, the demand for payment of tax now made is unsustainable, is the contention. So also the refusal to grant fresh stage carriage permit demanding payment of the arrears is unjustified, according to the petitioner. 3. Heard ; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is fairly conceded that, if there is clear proof produced regarding non-use of the vehicle, the petitioner may be liable for payment of tax only at the 'idle rate', for the periods after the expiry of the temporary permit. However, I am of the view that it is for the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the issue, at the first instance. It will be left open to the petitioner to submit written objections against the demand. If any such objection is submitted, the 2nd respondent has to take a decision regarding liability for payment of motor vehicle tax as well as a decision on the application for grant of temporary permit. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is 3 W.P.(C).No.12749 of 2011 disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the issue and to take a decision regarding liability for payment of motor vehicle tax due on the vehicle bearing No.KL-03-N- 3908, for the periods it was defaulted. If the petitioner submits any objections against the demand of tax, the same shall be considered within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of such objections, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Needless to say that, a decision on the application for temporary permit shall be taken by the 2nd respondent subject to his decision on the liability for payment of tax, thereafter, without any further delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/