IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24691 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINOY D.SAM, MULAYILAZHIYATHU BETHEL(H) ELAPPARA P.O., ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR) PEERUMADU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER. VANDI PERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. D.P.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, ELAPPARA KARAYIL, ELAPPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.24691 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition against revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of Motor Vehicles Tax of vehicle bearing Regn: No:KL-17/497, to which adittedly the petitioner was the owner. Contention is that he sold the vehicle to the 4th respondent by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement on 18.12.2005. However, transfer of ownership was not effected in the records of the registering authority and not endorsed in the Registration Certificates. It is the case of the petitioner that the transfer was intimated at that time itself to the registering authority concerned. However, no proof is produced with respect to any such intimation given in proper manner in the Form prescribed. When the petitioner was served with notice of revenue recovery steps, he made enquiries and it is revealed that the 4th respondent had already dismantled and scrapped the vehicle. Contention of the petitioner is that since the person who was in possession of the vehicle since the date of its transfer is the 4th respondent, the petitioner is not liable. 2. Going by provisions of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Both the registered owner and the person having possession and W.P.(C).24691/09-F 2 control of the vehicle are jointly liable for payment of tax with respect to a vehicle. In this case the authority concerned have not made any adjudication fixing the liability on any person for any particular period. It seems that no notice was issued to the 4th respondent. Under such circumstances, I feel that an adjudication is warranted in the matter, in the interest of justice. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to issue a speaking order fixing liability for payment of tax on the person/persons liable, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent affording them an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent is free to produce available records before the 3rd respondent in order to substantiate their respective claims. A final decision shall be taken in this matter as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The proceedings for recovery now initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice shall be kept in abeyance till orders are issued by the 3rd respondent as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb