Pauly P.K. @ Polly v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Irinjalakuda; Anto P.D; State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 11013 OF 2014** ## **PETITIONER:** PAULY P.K. @ POLLY AGED 43 YEARS S/O.KOCHAPPAN,PEENIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,OP.OKALLETTUMKARA,NEAR MOTHER TERESA LANE 680 683 THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV SRI.A.C.DEVY ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,IRINJALAKUDA 680121 2 ANTO P.D S/O.DEVASSY,PARAPPUKKARAKARAN HOUSE,CHENGALLOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 312 3 STATE OFKERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI. SAYED M. THANGAL -GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11013 OF 2014 :-2-: ## **J U D G M E N T** The writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:- i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent not to act any coercive steps on Ext.P7 memo and to quash the same; ii. to call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P7 and to issue a direction to the 1[st] respondent not to act on Ext.P7 without verifying the records leading to the issue of Ext.P7; iii. to give sufficient time/instalment facility to pay the amount; 2. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows:- Petitioner purchased a tempo traveller bearing Registration No.KL-7-U 301 from the second respondent and the same was transferred to his name on 6.9.2008. On 10.9.2008, a contract carriage permit was also issued by the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner, at the time of purchase of the vehicle, was convinced that the R.C. particulars and all other papers are in the original form and the petitioner had paid the true value of the vehicle to him even prior to the contract agreement for sale itself. The petitioner has been remitting the tax and insurance of the vehicle in time and in the meantime, Ext.P3 memo was issued by the first respondent to the WP(C) NO. 11013 OF 2014 :-3-: petitioner demanding arrears of tax. Thereafter, Ext.P4 notice was issued by the first respondent stating that tampering was done in respect of the seating capacity of the vehicle and the original seating capacity of the vehicle was 15, which was reduced to 13. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 reply to Ext.P4, through an Advocate stating that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and he was not aware of any tampering in the RC book. According to the petitioner, it is stated in Ext.P4 notice of the Joint Regional Transport Officer that when the vehicle stood registered in the name of the petitioner at the Sub Regional Transport Office, Irinjalakuda, backlog of the said vehicle entered in the computer system was manipulated and the seating capacity was got entered in the R.C.Book as 13 in all and permit was also issued for 13. When the petitioner came to know about the fraud committed by the second respondent with the assistance of Officers of the R.T.O., Ext.P6 lawyer notice was also issued to the second respondent. The second respondent replied stating that the vehicle was sold to the petitioner, according to the verification done by WP(C) NO. 11013 OF 2014 :-4-: the office of the first respondent. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P7 memo demanding an amount of Rs.1,28,470/- together with additional tax from the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of this Court in **Musthaffa.K.K.** v. **Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Thrissur** [2014(1) KLT 575] that tax payable under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KMVT Act') for a contract carriage will be on the basis of the definite seating capacity as designed by the manufacturer. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition. 3. The second respondent filed counter affidavit contending as follows:- The second respondent has not tampered the R.C.book with the assistance and connivance of officers of the first respondent. While the vehicle was in possession of the second respondent, tax was regularly paid as per the seating capacity mentioned in the R.C. particulars. The seating capacity of the vehicle from 15 to 13 was never reduced by the second respondent as alleged by the petitioner. WP(C) NO. 11013 OF 2014 :-5-: 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of purchase of the vehicle on 6.9.2008, the seating capacity was shown as 13 in the registration details and Ext.P2 Contract Carriage Permit. Ext.P2 was received by the petitioner after four days of purchase of the vehicle, i.e. on 10.09.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent with the connivance of the officials or the staff of the first respondent has done malpractice in the R.C.Book and the petitioner was directed to remit the amount in Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, the petitioner, being the bona fide purchaser, has purchased the vehicle on production of the permit, RC particulars and other relevant records. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the second respondent has not done any alteration in the R.C.Book and never reduced the seating WP(C) NO. 11013 OF 2014 :-6-: capacity of the vehicle from 15 to 13 and the second respondent never connived with the officers of the first respondent to tamper the registration certificate particulars. 7. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that these are matters to be agitated before the civil court by adducing evidence. However, the petitioner has sought for a direction to pay off the amount demanded in Ext.P7, in monthly instalments and to leave open the right of the petitioner to agitate the issue before a competent civil court. 8. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay off the amount in monthly instalments and to leave open the right of the petitioner to agitate the issue before a competent civil court. 9. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- 1. The petitioner is permitted to pay the amount demanded in WP(C) NO. 11013 OF 2014 :-7-: Ext.P7 together with additional tax if any, in 12 equated monthly instalments, the first of which shall commence from 16.08.2023. Subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 16[th] of the succeeding months. 2. Needless to say that in the event of default of any of the instalments, the benefit granted under this judgment shall not be available to the petitioner. 3. It is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy available to him by agitating the issue regarding tampering of the registration certificate, recovery of the amount demanded vide Ext.P7 memo and such other matters, before the competent civil court. sd/- **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE** MBS/ WP(C) NO. 11013 OF 2014 :-8-: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11013/2014** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION DETAILS ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF S.R.T.O IRINJALAKUDA EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,IRINJALAKUDA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERE DATED 10-092008 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO REF.NO C1/KL-7/4301/TAX DATED 21-03-2012 ISSUED BY THE S.R.T.C IRINJALAKUDA EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-09-2012 ISSUED BY THE S.R.T.O IRINJALAKUDA TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE THEREPLY NOTICE DATED 05-10-2012 FROM THE PETITIONEER THROPUGH ADVOCATE JIJO VARGHESE TO J.R.T.O IRINJALAKUDA EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THELAWYER NOTICE DATED 13-02-2013 FROM THE PETITIONER THRPOUGH ADVOCATE JIJO VARGHESE TO 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO C5/KL7/U 301/2014/S.C DATED 19-02-2014 IASSUED BY THE S.R.T.C IRINJALAKUDA TO THE PETITIONER