IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23961 of 2010(U)
1. BINU.P.N, AGED 29,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.C.SUDHEER
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :28/09/2010
O R D E R
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No. 23961 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage
vehicle bearing No.KL.8Z 3351, which was operated on the
route Alappuzha – Cherthala. According to the petitioner,
three bridges on the said route were under re-construction
and the service was to be conducted through a deviated
route by running 30 k.m. in excess. This led the petitioner
to financial difficulties and consequently there was default
in payment of motor vehicles tax due with respect to the
vehicle. In Ext.P1 the petitioner was granted instalment
facility by the Government with respect to tax payable for
the quarters ending on 31-3-2010 and on 30-6-2010. But
according to the petitioner, even before payment of the first
instalment the 2nd respondent took custody of the vehicle
alleging non-payment of tax. It is the case of the petitioner
that inspite of producing Ext.P1 order issued by the
Government, the vehicle was not released. Hence the
W.P.(C) No. 23961/2010 2
petitioner seeks a direction for release of the vehicle and to
permit him to pay the arrears in terms of Ext.P1.
2. In a statement filed by the 1st respondent it is
mentioned that, tax with respect to the period from1-10-
2005 to 30-6-2007 was in arrears and Revenue Recovery
steps were initiated for recovery of the said amount. It is
also stated that when the vehicle was seized and kept in
custody intimation was received from the Tahsildar
regarding the order issued by the Government for release
of the vehicle and accordingly the vehicle was released.
With respect to tax due for the quarter ending on 31-3-
2010, the petitioner obtained yet another order from the
Government allowing instalment facility, which is produced
as Ext.R1(d) along with the statement. Under that order the
petitioner was permitted to remit 1/3rd of the tax for the
quarter ending 31-3-2010 on or before 10-3-2010, and the
remaining in two equal monthly instalments. But the
petitioner had failed to remit the two instalments directed
therein. Under the above circumstances, on 28-7-2010 the
vehicle was again seized and taken into custody. Thereafter,
W.P.(C) No. 23961/2010 3
the petitioner produced Ext.P1 order before the 1st
respondent. It was noticed that the petitioner had obtained
repeated orders from the Government permitting instalment
payment, with respect to tax due for the same period. In
fact the Government had issued a general circular,
prohibiting repeated requests for instalment facilities,
suppressing similar facility, which was granted on an earlier
occasions. Exts.R1(e) and (f) are the Government orders in
this regard. It is stated that on the basis of the above
directions, the 1st respondent had already addressed the
Government to clarify as to whether the benefits granted
under Ext.P1 Government Order need be provided to the
petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned Government
Pleader that on the basis of such request made, the
Government had clarified through a general circular that
the Regional Transport Officers need not permit payment of
vehicle tax in instalments, if the facility for payment of such
arrear in instalment was granted on any earlier occasion.
Under such circumstances, contention of the respondents is
that the vehicle tax could not be accepted by virtue of
W.P.(C) No. 23961/2010 4
Ext.P1 order.
3. Having considered the factual situation and
contentions on both sides, it is evident that motor vehicles
tax with respect to the vehicle in question is in arrears due
for various periods. The vehicle is now under custody of the
2nd respondent, which is seized by virtue of section 11 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. I do not find any reason to interfere
with the seizure and detention, because admittedly tax with
respect to various periods is in arrears. It is also submitted
by learned counsel for the petitioner that applicaton for
instalment was submitted with respect to various periods
during which the vehicle was in custody of the 2nd
respondent.
4. Having taken note of the facts as stated above, I
am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to
pay off the entire arrears due within a reasonable time in
instalments. In this regard the respondents need not be
considered any existing orders of the Government granting
instalment facility nor any order which may be issued in
future in relation to arrears of tax due.
W.P.(C) No. 23961/2010 5
5. If the petitioner remits the entire arrears in 4 (four)
equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15-11-
2010 and on or before 15th day of the succeeding months
along with additional tax if any due with respect to the
period in default apart from the instalment facility granted
by the Government, the same shall be accepted.
6. It is further directed that the vehicle in question
shall be released to the petitioner on remittance of two
monthly instalments as directed above, on condition of the
petitioner furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he
will not alienate or part with the vehicle in any manner until
the entire liability is discharged.
7. Needless to say that the respondents will be at
liberty to proceed against the vehicle as well as properties
of the petitioner, if any default is committed.
C. K. ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE.
mn.