Judgment:
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner, learned counsel for the Transport Department and learned counsel for the Orissa State Financial Corporation.
2. The prayer in this writ petition is for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. OR-04-4757 and for other incidental reliefs. The vehicle belonged to opposite party No. 4. It was hypothecated to the Orissa State Financial Corporation. In enforcement of its rights, the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') brought the vehicle to sale. The offer made by the petitioner herein was accepted. The petitioner there upon sought the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration and also sought the issue of a duplicate Registration certificate. The authority took the stand that the motor vehicle tax under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was in arrears and unless and until that amount was cleared, the transfer could not be recognised. It was further stated that the duplicate certificate of registration could not be issued without the condition for it being fulfilled. It is at that stage that the petitioner approached this Court with the present writ petition.
3. There is no serious dispute that the Motor Vehicle Tax in respect of the vehicle in question was in arrears. When the Corporation exercised its right and sold the vehicle, the petitioner purchased the same. It is also clear from Section 12 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act that the liability for arrears of tax rests not only with the original owner but also with the subsequent transferee, even if that liability related to a period prior to the transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on clause (vi) of the Circular issued by the office of the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman. State Transport Authority, Orissa, wherein it was suggested that the Corporation will make the Regional Transport Officer concerned known of the cases of vehicles by sale of which they had recovered their dues by enforcing their right, so that the Corporation will be intimated of the arrears of tax outstanding in respect of that particular vehicle, and the Corporation will take steps to adjust the arrear of tax out of the recovery according to the adequacy of the amounts recovered. The learned counsel submitted that on the basis of this instruction, the liability to pay the arrears of tax rests with the Corporation and it cannot be passed on to the purchaser.
4. Learned counsel for the Transport Department submitted that the Circular referred to by the learned counsel for petitioner is no more in force, and as per the present circular the amount of arrears of tax could be realised from the transferee of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on the terms set out in the agreement or communication dated 12/14.1.1998, and that one of the conditions of sale was that the purchaser-petitioner will be liable for any arrears of tax. Our attention was invited to Clause (10) of that communication which is to the following effect:
'The Corporation will not be liable for statutory dues, such as M. v. Tax, road tax etc. if any against the vehicle prior to or after sale.'
The petitioner purchased the vehicle on the basis of the terms incorporated including the Clause quoted above. Section 12 of the Act imposes a statutory obligation on the purchaser to pay the arrears of tax, if any, due. Moreover, it is also seen that the condition relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner cannot be helpful to the petitioner in shifting his liability and fixing the same on the Corporation, even if the petitioner could take advantage of that circular-communication issued by the Transport Department to the Corporation. In this situation, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. If the petitioner wants to have the vehicle transferred to his name, he has necessarily to clear the arrears of tax due on the vehicle. It cannot be said that the authorities by insisting on clearing up the arrears of tax have acted unreasonably, illegaly or without jurisdiction. In that situation, we see no reason to interfere and dismiss the writ petition.