IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3027 of 2010() ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- ABDURAHIMAN.V.T, VALLIKKATHODI HOUSE, EDATHARA, ANAMANGAD, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. 2. MANIKANDAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, P.O.ANAMANGAD-679 357. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 3027 of 2010-C ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the owner of the contract carriage bearing No.KL-9A 8586, which was sold by the petitioner to the second respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of the sale, as it was communicated to the first respondent, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax in respect of the said vehicle for the period from 1.7.2009 to 31.12.2009, which is now demanded, resorting to coercive steps as borne by Ext.P2 notice and in turn subject to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limited prayer now sought to be granted by this Court is to direct the first respondent to conduct an enquiry about the actual ownership of the vehicle. This Court does not find it necessary to go into any such exercise or to promote any such experimental W.P(C) No. 3027 of 2010-C 2 litigation; particularly in view of the fact that absolutely no material has been produced by the petitioner evidencing the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. That apart, the prayer of the petitioner, if entertained by this Court, is likely to affect the public revenue very much adversely, incurring and involving much cost/expense and man power. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner was the 'registered owner' of the vehicle, the liability stands very much cast upon him as provided under Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit or bonafides and no interference is called for, except that the petitioner could be permitted to wipe off the entire liability as shown in Ext.P2, by way of reasonable instalments. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- on or before 15.2.2010 and the balance payment shall be effected by way of 'five' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be satisfied on or before the 15th of March 2010; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 15th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 3027 of 2010-C 3 clearing the liability as above, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps, for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. It is also made clear that this verdict will not stand in the way of the first respondent to proceed against the vehicle for realisation of the dues in accordance with law, if the same is traced out. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab