Kerala High Court
Ratheesh vs The Joint Regional Transport ... on 1 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 30103 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
RATHEESH, AGED 39 YEARS
S/O ABRAHAM, PANAMCHICKAL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR PO,
NEELESHWARAM, ANKAMALY.
BY ADV P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
ANGAMALI.683001.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AYYAMPUZHA POLICE STATION-683001.
BY GP RASMITHA RAMACHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.30103/2018
-2-
JUDGMENT
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed impugning the demand of
tax on the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-41/C-5706,
which is a goods carriage vehicle of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner's case is that the said vehicle was
stolen on 05.07.2017, and the petitioner had filed FIR No.518 of
2017 in respect of the theft of his vehicle with Ayyampuzha
Police Station. The Police could recover the said vehicle on
06.03.2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is not liable to pay tax for the period when he was
not in possession of the said vehicle, because of theft of the
vehicle on 05.07.2017.
W.P.(C) No.30103/2018
4. Admittedly, the petitioner had not given any
intimation to the Transport Authority regarding the theft of
the vehicle and claimed an exception for payment of tax for
the period during which the vehicle was not in his possession
because of the theft of the vehicle. It was the duty of the
petitioner to intimate the factum of theft of the vehicle to the
Transport Authority, and after the vehicle recovered, he ought
to have intimated that the vehicle had been recovered. No
such action appears to have been taken by the petitioner.
5. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner's writ
petition before this court is not liable to be entertained. When
the petitioner himself is in default, he cannot approach the
constitutional court, which is an equitable remedy for the
grant of the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
6. At this stage, Smt Reshmita Ramachandran learned
Government Pleader submits that there is an Amnesty Scheme
W.P.(C) No.30103/2018
in respect of the Motor Vehicle Tax in force, and the petitioner
can approach the jurisdictional Regional Transport Office for
compounding the tax liability for the period during which the
vehicle was not in his possession because of the theft of the
vehicle.
7. Considering the aforesaid submission, the present
writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
approach the concerned jurisdictional RTO for compounding
the tax for the period from 05.07.2017 to 06.03.2018 under the
Amnesty Scheme of the Department. If the petitioner moves
such an application within a period of ten days, the said
application should be decided considering the fact that the
vehicle was not in the possession of the petitioner for the
period from 05.07.2017 to 06.03.2018. The petitioner would be
free to cite any case law before the authority concerned.
W.P.(C) No.30103/2018
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
jjj
W.P.(C) No.30103/2018
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30103/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-41/C 5706.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 06.6.2018
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 04.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.6.2007 IN
WA.NO,2265 OF 2002.
EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.9.2013 IN
WPC.NO.18051 OF 2010.
