IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 6894 of 2009(F) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------- K. NAJEEM, MACHU VEEDU, MYLAKKADU.P.O, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOLLAM. 2. DY. TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. I.N.G VYSYA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ING VYSYA BANK, SHEMA BUILDING, COCHIN-16. BY SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. SRI. R.S. KALKURA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6894/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF R.C. BOOK DTD. 29.7.04. EXT. P2 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 TO PETITIONER DTD. 11.6.07. EXT. P3 : COPY OF CHEQUE ISSUED BY R3 TO PETITIONER DTD. 2.1.08. EXT. P4 : R.R. NOTICE ISSUED BY R2 TO PETITIONER DTD. 4.2.09. EXT. P5 : COPY OF WRITTEN REQUEST SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1 DTD. 17.2.09. I.A.1788/10 EXT. P6 IN : COPY OF SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY R2 DTD. 21.12.09. EXT. P7 IN : COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT DTD. 21.1.10. I.A.17859/10 EXT. P6 : COPY OF CHEQUE DTD. 21.1.10 OF DHANALEKSHMI BANK LTD., KOLLAM. EXT. P7 : COPY OF LETTER DTD. 27.1.10 OF TAHSILDAR (R.R) KOLLAM. EXT. P8 : COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR RECEIPT OF AMOUNT. EXT. P9 : COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD.20.11.10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6894 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 3rd respondent on 29.7.2007 for purchase of a stage carriage. The petitioner became the registered owner of the vehicle so purchased in accordance with the agreement. The petitioner committed default in payment of the hire amount as per the agreement. The 3rd respondent financier possessed the vehicle and sold it. After adjusting the amount due to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.40,870/-. Now, the petitioner has been served with revenue recovery notice for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,24,325/- as arrears of motor vehicle tax for the period from 1.4.2007 to 30.6.2008. The petitioner challenged the same on the ground that the petitioner is not liable to pay the motor vehicle tax after the date when the financier possessed the vehicle. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid the tax due on the vehicle till the same was taken over by the financier. The petitioner seeks the W.P.(C)No.6894/09 2 following reliefs: “1) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the entire proceedings under Exhibit P4 Revenue Recovery Notice. 2) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P5 written request and to issue fresh recovery notice to the 3rd respondent in terms of law”. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that insofar as the petitioner continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle, as per the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the petitioner continues to be liable, insofar as he has not taken steps to get the registration transferred in accordance with law to the subsequent purchaser. 3. The 3rd respondent financier has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. There is a charge on the vehicle itself for motor vehicle tax. That being so, I am of opinion that respondents 1 and 2 should first proceed against the vehicle itself. Of course, as long as the petitioner continues to be the registered owner, he continues to be liable for motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle. At the same time, the financier, who possessed the W.P.(C)No.6894/09 3 vehicle, as well as the subsequent purchaser are also liable to be proceeded against for recovery of the motor vehicle tax. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Respondents 1 and 2 shall first proceed against the vehicle for recovery of the arrears of tax due. The proceedings in that regard shall be taken up and completed within a period of two months. If the vehicle cannot be traced or the amount received by sale of the vehicle is not sufficient to cover the tax due, respondents 1 and 2 shall proceed simultaneously against the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and the present possessor of the vehicle for recovery of the balance amount due as motor vehicle tax. If the petitioner is made liable to pay any tax in respect of the vehicle for any period during which he was not in possession of the vehicle, it would be open to the petitioner to recover the same from the subsequent possessors of the vehicle. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.6894/09 4 W.P.(C)No.6894/09 5