Kerala High Court
Raveendran Nair V vs The Regional Transport Officer
Author: V.Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 30063 of 2013 (G)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
RAVEENDRAN NAIR V
TC 21/21641-1, KARTHIKA HOUSE, NEDUNKAD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001.
2. THE ASST. MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR
RTO OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUNJACHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 30063 of 2013 (G)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX TOKEN.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 14/09/11.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO 27/09/11.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/09/11.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1/11/13.
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25/11/13.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
Pn
V.CHITAMBARESH,J
--------------------------
W.P.(C).No.30063 of 2013
------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2013
JUDGMENT
---------------
The petitioner asserts that his vehicle (KL 01-D-2214) was seized by the second respondent on 25/10/2006. The petitioner contends that he was not in control and custody of the vehicle since then. The petitioner disclaims his liability to pay Motor Vehicles Tax after the date of seizure. Reliance is placed on the following decisions on that score.
i) Haridasan v. District Collector 2002(2) KLT 684
ii) Satheesh v. Joint Regional Transport Officer 2009(1) KLT 420 DB
iii) Jomon v. Tahsildar 2009(3) KLT 721
2. The petitioner adds that the vehicle now in the custody of the second respondent can be sold. The petitioner points out that the sale proceeds can be adjusted towards the Motor Vehicles Tax due. The petitioner however wants reimbursement of the balance amount after adjusting towards tax arrears. The petitioner has in this regard submitted Exts.P4 and P6 representations with the first respondent.
3. I direct the first respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P6 representations with notice to the petitioner. The same shall be W.P.(C).No.30063 of 2013 2 done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P2 memo and Ext.P5 notice shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition with the judgment before the first respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge AV