IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 22353 of 2007(J)
1. K.C.LAKSHMANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,
3. K.P.SUKUMARAN, S/O BALAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/07/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 22353 OF 2007
-------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JULY, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges proceeding for recovery of motor
vehicle tax in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-13-
4698 on the ground that the petitioner had sold the vehicle to the 3rd
respondent by sale deed dated 12.8.95 and the demand for tax is in
respect of the period subsequent to the same. The petitioner does not
dispute the fact that the petitioner continues to be the owner of the
vehicle. That being so, he cannot seek absolute immunity from
payment of tax in respect of the vehicle. However, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that since the vehicle itself is
available, the respondents may be directed to proceed against the
vehicle on which there is a charge for the motor vehicle tax.
2. I have heard the learned Government pleader also. The
learned Government pleader would submit that in view of Section 9 of
Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner cannot validly contend that he should
be absolved from liability.
3. After hearing both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with
the following directions.
W.P.(c)No.22353/07 2
The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- within two
weeks and also point out to the 2nd respondent the location of the
vehicle presently. The 2nd respondent shall thereafter attempt to
recover the balance amount by proceeding against the vehicle.
However, if the 2nd respondent is unable to locate the vehicle, the
2nd respondent shall continue recovery against the petitioner. For
this purpose, I direct that on payment of Rs.25,000/- further
proceedings for coercive recovery from the petitioner shall be kept
in abeyance till the 2nd respondent concludes that it is not
practicably possible to proceed against the vehicle. Needless to
say,if the 2nd respondent locates the vehicle with the help of the
petitioner, it would be open to the 2nd respondent to take steps for
recovery of the amounts due, if necessary, by sale of the vehicle.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.22353/07 3