Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Travancore Forward Bank Limited, Kottayam. The 1st respondent is the State of Kerala, the 2nd, the Traffic and Taxation Assistant, Kottayam, and the 3rd, the Tahsildar, Ponkunnam. The prayer in the petition is that this court "be pleased to call for the records relating to the assessment of Vehicle Tax for TCK Nos. 1382 to 1387,1389 to 1394,1634 and MSTR 4278 and to quash the orders passed by Respondents 1 and 2 directing the levy of Vehicle Tax for the above vehicles from the petitioner and the proceedings by the 3rd respondent for recovery of the Tax by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ or Order". 2. The circumstances in which the vehicles came to be registered in the name of the Bank is detailed in Para.2 of the affidavit in support of the petition: "As security for monies borrowed from the Bank by one M.P. Kadirkani Rowther and his brother M.P. Nagoor Meeran Rowther under a Promissory Note dated 9th September 1949, the former had hypothecated in favour of the Bank certain lorries owned by M.P. Kadirkani Rowther viz. TCK Nos. 1383 to 1387,1389 to 1394,1634 and MSTR 4278 and others To ensure that the vehicles were not transferred by him pending the repayment of the above debt, the registration of these vehicles was transferred to Sri K.V. George, the then Agent of the Bank at Ponkunnam with an endorsement by the authority concerned that Kadirkani Rowther continued in possession of the lorries. The Registration certificate for TCK. No. 1383 is filed here with and referred to as Ext. P(1). The endorsements on the registration certificate of the other vehicles are also to the same effect". The endorsement in Ext. P1 is dated 1-11-1949 and reads as follows: "Transferred to Sri K. V. George, Agent, Travancore Forward Bank Ltd., Ponkunnam, retaining temporary possession to Sri M. P. Kadirkhani Rauther". 3. It is not contended that by the transfers effected in this fashion the Bank did not become the registered owner of the vehicles concerned. The endorsement in Ext. P1 is dated 1-11-1949 and reads as follows: "Transferred to Sri K. V. George, Agent, Travancore Forward Bank Ltd., Ponkunnam, retaining temporary possession to Sri M. P. Kadirkhani Rauther". 3. It is not contended that by the transfers effected in this fashion the Bank did not become the registered owner of the vehicles concerned. It is also not contended that I should evaluate in a petition like this the petitioner's case to the effect that the vehicles were not in a running condition during the relevant period, that they had become unserviceable long prior to that period, and as a result they are not liable to be taxed under the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950. The only contention pressed before me is a contention based on the wording of S.4 of the said enactment. 4. Sub-section (1) of S.3 of the Act provides: "Government may by notification in the Gazette from time to time direct that a tax shall be levied on every vehicle using any public road in the State". and sub-section (1) (a) of S.4 (omitting the Explanation thereto which is not material): "The tax levied in respect of a motor vehicle in pursuance of a notification issued under sub-section (1) of S.3 shall be paid by the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle at his choice either quarterly, half-yearly or annually upon a quarterly, half-yearly, or annual licence to be taken out by him". The definition of the expression "registered owner" - in relation to a motor vehicle - - given in 6.2 (8) of the Act is: "'registered owner' means in relation to a motor vehicle the person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered or deemed to be registered under the law relating to motor vehicles for the time being in force". 5. According to counsel for the petitioner the true meaning of sub-section (1)(a) of S.4 is that the tax shall be paid by the registered owner if he is in possession or control of the vehicle, and if he is not, by the person having possession or control of the same. I see no warrant for such an interpretation. 6. 5. According to counsel for the petitioner the true meaning of sub-section (1)(a) of S.4 is that the tax shall be paid by the registered owner if he is in possession or control of the vehicle, and if he is not, by the person having possession or control of the same. I see no warrant for such an interpretation. 6. As pointed out by Latham, C. J., in 73 Commonwealth Law Reports 304(313): "When the word 'or' is used in relation to two or more alternatives, it is not necessarily the case that the alternatives are mutually exclusive. The question as to whether they are mutually exclusive or not must be determined by applying the general rule that words should be construed to ascertain the intention of the provision in question to be collected from the whole of its terms". In the present case I feel no difficulty whatsoever in holding that the alternatives are not mutually exclusive. 7. It is admitted that steps have been taken by the State to realise the tax from the person in possession of the vehicles, though without success, and the further submission of counsel for the petitioner is that having elected to proceed against the person in possession of the vehicles, the State has no right thereafter to proceed against the registered owner for the realisation of the same amount. I take the view that this submission also is devoid of merit. 8. As I understand the Act both the registered owner and the person having possession or control of the motor vehicles are liable for the tax. In other words, my view is that attempts to realise the tax from either of them will not exonerate the other and the liability of both of them will continue as long as the arrears subsist and have not been liquidated. 9. S.8 of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, provides: "If the tax due in respect of any vehicle has not been paid, the registered owner or the person having possession or control thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees; and the amount of the tax due by him in respect of such vehicle for the quarter or quarters or half-year or year concerned shall also be recovered as if it were a fine. In A.I.R. 1930 Madras 510 a somewhat similar provision of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920-S.182 (1)-came up for consideration. That provision is it stood at that time was in the following terms: "The chairman may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate; bar or ground-floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any street" Pandalai, J. said: "This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the order dated 29th August 1929 of the Bench Magistrate of Tiruvarur acquitting the respondents respectively the occupier and owner of premises within the Municipality of Tiruvarur, who were charged at the instance of the municipality with having disobeyed a notice under S.182 (1). District Municipalities Act, to remove certain alleged encroachments in front of the said premises. The Bench without going into the merits of the charge acquitted the respondents upon the ground that under S.182 (1), District Municipalities Act notice to remove construction or encroachment can only be given to either the occupier or the owner but not to both. The Bench further held that the municipality not having elected to proceed against the one or the other but having proceeded against both, the prosecution case failed The only question in this appeal is whether this view is correct. In my view it is not. The only object of saying that the chairman may require the owner or occupier to remove encroachment is to enlarge the class of persons against whom notice may be sent and not to restrict it. Either the owner may be proceeded against or the occupier or both. There is nothing in the use of the word 'or' in that section which restricts the municipality to choosing one out of the two persons proceeded against. The order of acquittal of the Bench Magistrate is set aside and the case will go back to them for disposal according to law". 10. The petitioner moved the Government of Kerala by a petition dated 22 61957. Ext. P8 dated 9-11-1957 is the order thereon: "The Government have examined the contentions of the Travancore Forward Bank Ltd., that the Bank are not liable to be proceeded against for the tax arrears in respect of the motor vehicles in question and that the amount of tax arrears is excessive. Ext. P8 dated 9-11-1957 is the order thereon: "The Government have examined the contentions of the Travancore Forward Bank Ltd., that the Bank are not liable to be proceeded against for the tax arrears in respect of the motor vehicles in question and that the amount of tax arrears is excessive. The Government have come to the decision that these contentions cannot be sustained". 11. I am not called upon to decide whether the amount claimed is excessive or not. As regards the rest of the order there can be no doubt that it is correct and that the Bank is liable to be proceeded against for the arrears of tax due to the State in respect of the vehicles concerned. 12. It follows that the petition has to be dismissed and I do so with costs, advocate's fee Rs. 150/- for all the three respondents together. Dismissed.