IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36263 of 2009(C)
1. T.P.ANDRU, THAYYULLAPARAMBATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOINT R.T.O., VATAKARA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.),
3. V.P.MURALEEDHARAN,
4. MESSERS SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE &
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VATHSALAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 36263 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 Revenue
Recovery notice issued at the instance of the first respondent for realisation
of the amount due towards the Motor Vehicles Tax in respect of the stage
carriage bearing No. KL – 11/L 6297, for the period from January, 2008 to
May 2008. The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of the financial
constraints, he had sold the bus to the 3rd respondent on 25.04.2007 as per
Ext.P1 agreement and further that the bus was in the custody of the 4th
respondent/financier, at the time of Ext.P1 agreement, due to the default
committed in effecting the repayment.
2. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st and 2nd
respondent submits that the petitioner still continues as the RC owner of the
vehicle in question and that by virtue of specific mandate under Section 9 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability is very much cast upon the registered
owner of the vehicle.
3. The submission made by the learned Government Pleader as
above, as to the ownership of the vehicle, as registered in the name of the
petitioner, is not disputed from the part of the petitioner. This being the
WP(C) No.36263/2009 2
position, there is absolutely no merit in the contention raised in the Writ
Petition as to the challenge against Ext.P2. If the petitioner has actually
parted with the possession and sold the vehicle to somebody else (with
regard to which no opinion is being expressed in view of the admitted hire
purchase agreement with the 4th respondent), the remedy of the petitioner is
something else.
4. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner
is permitted to clear the entire liability under Ext.P2, in ‘six’ equal monthly
instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this
month, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the
last working day of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further
coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance and if any
default is committed by the petitioner in this regard, the 1st and 2nd
respondents will at liberty to proceed with further coercive steps from the
stage where it stands now. It is also made clear that it will be open for the
petitioner to proceed against the actual person concerned if he has parted
with the possession and ownership of the petitioner by pursuing appropriate
proceedings before the appropriate Forum.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc