Karnataka High Court
Mr Abid P vs The State Government on 28 June, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S PATIL
W.P. No.21513 OF 2012(T-MVT)
BETWEEN :
MR. ABID P,
S/O. P. MUHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF :
NO.9/1, PULLIPAT HOUSE,
NIRAMARUTHUR POST OFFICE,
VIA TIRUR, MALLAPURAM - 676 109.
AT PRESENT RESIDING AT :
ROOM NO.108, BRU RESIDENCY,
YENAPOYA MEN'S HOSTEL,
DERALAKATTE, MANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.)
AND :
1 THE STATE GOVERNMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
D. K. DISTRICT,
MANGALORE,
2
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. T. K. VEDAMURTHY, G.P. (G.P. TO TAKE
NOTICE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER / CHALLAN VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 13.06.2012
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 NOT TO INSIST THE PETITIONER TO PAY
THE KARNTAKA ROAD TAX FOR THE VOLKSWAGEN VENTO CAR
BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-55-J-2000 IN THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA.
THIS PETITON COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
JUDGMENT:
ORDER In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the action of the second respondent - Regional Transport Officer, Dakshina Kannada District, in seizing the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-55-J-2000.
2. The vehicle in question has been registered by the petitioner on 3-8-11 in the office of the sub-Regional Transport Office, Tirur, Kerala state. According to the petitioner, he has paid the life time tax. Petitioner has produced the certificate of registration along with the life 3 time tax receipt at Annexure - `B'.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of Mallapuram District, Kerala state and is pursuing his studies in MBBS, residing in a hostel belonging to Yenapoya Medical College, Deralakatte, Mangalore.
4. The car belonging to the petitioner was intercepted and seized by the Inspector on 13-6-12. According to the petitioner, the officials attached to the second respondent, without verifying the original documents and although the petitioner had not violated any of the legal provisions, seized the vehicle. The petitioner, it is urged, was informed, that only on verification of original documents and upon payment of life tax to the Karnataka Government, the vehicle would be released. In fact, an endorsement to this effect has been issued by the RTO vide Annexure - `C'. Aggrieved by this endorsement and the action in seizing the vehicle, the 4 petitioner has approached this Court.
5. As the petitioner had prima facie disclosed, by producing the registration certificate that the vehicle was got registered in the state of Kerala on 3-8-11 and he had paid life time tax there, the learned Government Pleader was asked to find out under what circumstances and for what reason the extreme action of seizing the vehicle was resorted to by the officials attached to the second respondent.
6. On instructions from the concerned RTO who is present before the Court, learned Government Pleader submits that the seizure was effected as the petitioner failed to produce necessary documents to show that tax had been paid. As can be seen from Sec.47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when a motor vehicle registered in one State had been kept in another State for a period exceeding twelve months, the owner of the vehicle shall have to apply to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the 5 vehicle is then found, for assigning new registration mark and shall have to present the certificate of registration to the registering authority by following certain requirements. The liability to pay life time tax also arises at that stage in the State where the vehicle is brought.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner has got the vehicle registered in the State of Kerala on 3-8-11. It is his case that, he has brought the vehicle for a temporary period and as twelve months had not lapsed from the date of registration of the vehicle, petitioner was not under any legal obligation to register the vehicle in Karnataka and pay tax here. If only the RTO had looked into the registration certificate and the tax paid receipt in the State of Kerala, keeping in mind the legal requirement as spelt out in Sec. 47 of the Act, the seizure of the vehicle could not have been resorted to. No exception can be taken for the authorities to proceed in accordance with law, to demand the tax, if the petitioner is indeed liable to pay. As the petitioner, in the instant case, has shown that the vehicle 6 has been registered quite recently on 3-8-11 at Kerala and the life time tax was paid there, there was indeed no necessity for the RTO to come to the conclusion that the vehicle could be released only on verification of the original documents and on payment of life time tax. Therefore, there was no justification for the RTO to issue the impugned endorsement stating that the vehicle would be released on payment of life time tax.
8. Counsel for the petitioner is right and justified in placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mahesh C.Gandhi vs. Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Belgaum and another reported in 2005 AIR Karnataka HCR 2140.
9. At this stage, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is liable to pay tax as per the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, particularly Sec. 3(2). At this stage, it is unnecessary to deal with this question, in as much as no proceeding is initiated against 7 the petitioner under this provision. Suffice to observe that the impugned endorsement and the action of seizing the vehicle is illegal.
10. Therefore, the impugned action of seizure and the endorsement - Annexure `C' are set aside. The RTO is directed to release the vehicle.
11. If the petitioner is liable to pay tax under any other provision of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, for having brought the vehicle and used it in the State of Karnataka, even for a temporary period, it will be open for the second respondent to initiate proceedings in that regard and by providing opportunity to the petitioner pass necessary orders.
SD/-
JUDGE mgn/-