High Court Kerala High Court

K.Yoosaf vs The Joint R.T.O. Perinthalmanna on 6 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.Yoosaf vs The Joint R.T.O. Perinthalmanna on 6 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36452 of 2005(M)


1. K.YOOSAF, S/O.ALI, KOYALAN HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE JOINT R.T.O. PERINTHALMANNA.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR R.R.

3. AHAMMED, S/O.MOIDEEN, PERINGODAN HOUSE,

4. AVAROOTY, S/O.YAHOO,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILIP MOHAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :06/06/2008

 O R D E R
                       C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  ....................................................................
                            W.P.(C) No.36452 of 2005
                  ....................................................................
                      Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008.

                                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings on the ground that

the vehicle in respect of which tax is demanded i.e. KLL 4599, was sold by

the petitioner to the third respondent who in turn appears to have sold the

same to 4th respondent. The petitioner has not produced any acceptable

evidence except agreement for sale of the vehicle. It is also not known

whether the vehicle is in operation. In any case since 3rd respondent is

dead and 4th respondent is not traceable, recovery has to be against the

petitioner, more so, because petitioner as registered owner is liable to tax

under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. However, if

petitioner traces the vehicle and informs the second respondent, he will

attach and sell the vehicle in recovery proceedings. If petitioner does not

trace the vehicle and inform the second respondent, then recovery will be

continued against the petitioner. The W.P. is closed leaving freedom to the

petitioner to proceed against the buyer for recovery of amount paid by him

through civil court.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms