This specific contention of the petitioner has not been considered by the 3rd respondent while passing Ext.P8 order, by which the revision petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not produced reliable proof to substantiate his contention. In my view, the 3rd respondent ought to have caused an enquiry to be done in the matter so as to ascertain whether the registration certificate and permit in respect of the vehicle had actually been surrendered and were available with the respondents in the files relating to the said motor vehicle. If, as a matter of fact, the petitioner had surrendered the registration certificate and permit pertaining to the vehicle before the registering authority, then it is apparent that, notwithstanding the non-compliance by the petitioner with the statutory formality of intimating the registering authority of the transfer of the vehicle, he would have surrendered the registration certificate of the vehicle and thereby ceased to be the registered owner of the vehicle in the files of the registering authority. In that latter event, he could not have been proceeded against for recovery of motor vehicle tax dues for the period subsequent to the date of surrender of the registration certificate. Thus, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 3rd respondent. To enable the 3rd respondent to
