The petitioner purchased a vehicle after availing a loan from a financier. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was repossessed by the 3rd respondent financier on 25.08.2007 and sold to the 4th respondent on 12.12.2007. The concern of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he may be liable to pay tax for the period subsequent to 25.08.2007. There is no mention in the writ petition, however, of any demand made against the petitioner for the motor vehicle tax for the period subsequent to 25.08.2007, when according to the petitioner the vehicle was repossessed by the 3rd respondent. In such a situation, the prayer sought for by the petitioner, which is in the nature of an anticipatory relief, cannot be granted in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition to the extent it seeks a relief, that would insulate the petitioner from any future demand of tax, cannot be maintained and is accordingly dismissed.
2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is willing to comply with the statutory procedure under the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules for the purposes of intimating the registering authority of the fact that the vehicle has since been repossessed by W.P.(C).No.33991 of 2010 -2-
the financier and also sold by the financier to the 4th respondent. He seeks a direction from this court to enable him to do that. It is open to the petitioner to comply with the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules for the purposes of safeguarding his interest with regard to a future liability. There is no necessity for any direction from this Court in that regard and hence, I refrain from issuing any such direction.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns W.P.(C).No.33991 of 2010 -3-