The petitioner's son was the registered owner of a 'contract carriage' bearing No.KLB 2241. There occurred some default in satisfying the tax payable under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, which led to recovery proceedings, setting the machinery under the R.R. Act in motion. It is stated that the petitioner's son took his last breath on 23.04.2008. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner also bid farewell to this world on 23.05.2008 and the liability was sought to be realised from the petitioner, being the legal heir.
2. The case put up by the petitioner is that, the deceased son of the petitioner had satisfied the entire tax liability then and there. Reliance is sought to be placed on Ext.P4 receipt as to the remittance of a sum of Rs.3307+4 = 3311/-, on 26.03.1996. It was without any regard to the satisfaction of the liability, that the concerned respondents proceeded with R.R. steps. Pursuant to the intervention made by this Court in WP(C) No.155/2012, Ext.P6 revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the 3rd WP(c). No.16658 of 2012 2 respondent who considered the same and Ext.P8 order came to be passed on 09.06.2012. On satisfaction the factual position brought to light, as to the remittance of Rs.3,307/- by the petitioner's son as early as on 30.03.1996, it was deducted and the balance was ordered to be recovered by way of instalments at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st and the 3rd respondents referring to the sequence of events. The learned Government Pleader submits that the principal amount has been satisfied and the balance is towards the collection charges and such other heads, which stated as something less than `1,000/-, as per the instructions received.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the course pursued by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P8 is per se wrong and unsustainable in all respects. After admitting the satisfaction of the amount of `3,307/- by the petitioner's son as early as in 1996, the same has been simply deducted from the total amount stated as payable and worked out the balance in the year 2012. As a matter of fact, a sum of `3,307/- satisfied by the WP(c). No.16658 of 2012 3 petitioner's son ought to have been credited against the outstanding liability as on the date of remittance in 1996. If so, no further liability would have been there under any circumstances, submits the learned counsel.
5. After hearing both the sides this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the above particular facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there cannot be any further liability to be mulcted upon the shoulders of the petitioner.
6. The satisfaction of the liability is recored and the writ petition is disposed of, making it clear that no coercive proceedings shall be pursued against the petitioner in respect of the cause of action projected in the writ petition.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn