JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioner is the registered owner of a contract carriage bearing Registration No. KL-10-AC-979. The vehicle originally belonged to the District Tourism Promotion Council, Malappuram, (DTPC), of which the District Collector Malappuram was the Chairman. The petitioner purchased the vehicle at an auction conducted by the DTPC. When the petitioner approached the 1st respondent to effect the change of registration and to obtain a permit for the vehicle, the same was denied on the ground that there were arrears of road tax for the period from 01-07-2016 to 30-06-2018. Ext.P2 notice was issued to the petitioner demanding the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,89,540/- as the motor vehicle tax for the period from 01-10-2016 to 31-03-2018. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation to the 2nd respondent (District Collector, Malappuram) in his capacity as Chairman of the DTPC. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 letter to the 1st respondent seeking orders exempting the tax payment for the period in question, indicating that the vehicle was not being used for the period in question. However, no action was taken by the 1st respondent. Faced with a situation where the petitioner could not use the vehicle, the petitioner remitted the tax for the period from 01-07-2016 to 30-06-2018 and thereafter, applied for a refund of the tax from 01-07-2016 till the date of registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is thereafter before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction the 1st respondent to refund the road tax of Rs. 1,92,780/- (One lakh ninety two thousand seven hundred and eighty only) remitted by the 1st respondent accordance with the Ext.P2 notice within time limit framed by this Hon’ble court.

(ii) To issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to declare the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the tax during the period of vehicle in kept in custody.

(iii) Allow the Writ petition with costs.”

2. Ms. Amrutha Vidyadharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, refers to the provisions of Section 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1976 Act’) to contend that when the vehicle in question was admittedly in the custody of the DTPC headed by the District Collector, the petitioner is entitled to claim a refund of the taxes paid for the period from 01-07-2016 till the date of registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Nisamudheen vs. The Joint Regional Transport Officer, 2009 (3) KLT 1058, on the judgment of a Five Bench Judge of this Court in Jomon M. Arackal vs. Tahsildar, 2015 (1) KLT 163 and also on the judgment of this Court in Damodaran vs. RTO, Malappuram, 2000 (2) KLT 578 in support of the contention that in the circumstances noticed above, the petitioner was entitled to seek refund of the tax paid under Section 6 of the 1976 Act.

3. Smt. Thushara James, the learned senior Government Pleader, vehemently submits that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund of motor vehicle tax in the facts and circumstances of this case. She refers to the provisions of Section 6 of the 1976 Act to contend that it is clear from a reading of the provisions that a claim for a refund of tax can be made only if the tax for the period in question has been paid within time and after that when the vehicle is not intended to be put to use for a period not less than one month within the period for which the tax has been paid in advance in terms of Section 4 of the 1976 Act. It is submitted that it is clear from the provisions of Section 6 that a claim for a refund of tax can be made only subject to the conditions as may be specified in a notification to be issued by the Government. It is submitted that the Government has issued G.O. (P) No. 18/2004/Tran da