IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 785 of 2007(R)
1. P.K.SUDARSANAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. P.KAVIRAJ, S/O. PADMANABHA PANICKER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ESM.KABEER
For Respondent :SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/08/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 785 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 3rd August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage
bearing registration no. KL-5/9306. According to the petitioner, he
had transferred the vehicle to the 3rd respondent as per Ext. P1
agreement dated 11-2-1999. In 2004, a demand notice was issued to
the petitioner directing him to pay motor vehicles tax for the period
subsequent to the transfer. The petitioner challenged the demand in
W.P(C) No. 2212/2004. In that, this Court had, by Ext. P3 judgment
dated 21-1-2004, directed the Regional Transport Officer, Kollam to
consider a representation filed by the petitioner, which was produced
as Ext. P3 in that writ petition, with notice and opportunity to the
petitioner and the 3rd respondent within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of that judgment. It was further directed that
further proceedings against the petitioner shall be deferred till a
decision is taken as directed in that judgment. It was also made clear
that this will not preclude respondents 1 and 2 from proceeding
against the vehicle concerned. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ
petition is that without complying with the directions in the
judgment, proceedings have been initiated again for recovery of the
amounts from the petitioner. Under the above circumstances, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:
“to issue a writ of mandamus to any other writ, order or direction
directing the 1st respondent to issue the order passed on Ext. P2
representation in compliance of Ext. P3 judgment to the
petitioner.”
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the notice
issued to the petitioner pursuant to the said judgment had been
returned with the endorsement ‘not known’ and that is why the
W.P.C. No. 785/07 -: 2 :-
proceedings could not be finalised. However, the learned
Government Pleader now admits that a notice was issued in the
address at Perumbavoor P.O whereas the petitioner’s address is
Perumpalloor P.O. In view of the said mistake, the learned
Government Pleader submits that the directions in Ext. P3 judgment
would be complied with after hearing the petitioner within one
month. This is recorded and the writ petition is closed.
Needless to say, until the matter is finalised as directed in Ext.
P3 judgment, no further proceedings shall be initiated against the
petitioner for recovery of the disputed amount. The petitioner shall,
on receipt of notice, appear before the R.T.O and co-operate with the
proceedings . I also make it clear that in the meanwhile the first
respondent would be free to proceed against the 2nd respondent and
the vehicle for recovery of the defaulted tax.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/