Order.- One Luka, a stage carriage operator, was operating among others a vehicle KIK 7717 under a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authorities in the State of Kerala. The petitioner herein who is carrying on business as Hire Purchase Financiers at Madras entered into a hire purchase agreement, dated 25th September, 1967 in respect of the said vehicle under which the said Luka, the owner of the vehicle had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,400 in 23 monthly instalments commencing from 25th November, 1967. The hire purchase transaction has been duly endorsed in the registration certificate of the vehicle as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently, the said Luka wanted extension of time for repayment of the loan on reduced monthly instalments. Therefore, the hire purchase agreement was entered into on 1st May, 1969 under which a sum of Rs. 27,650 was payable by him in 20 monthly instalments commencing from 1st June, 1969. Again at the instance of the said Luka a fresh revised hire purchase agreement was entered into on 22nd November, 1970, under which he had agreed to pay the instalments at the rate of Rs. 1,100. 2. Since the said Luka had committed default in the payment of monthly instalments as per the said revised hire purchase agreement dated 22nd November, 1970 the petitioner filed a suit, O.S. No. 1583 of 1973 on the file of the City Civil Court, for recovery of the amount due to him under the hire purchase agreement dated 22nd November, 1970 and also for enforcing a charge against the vehicle. In that suit the petitioner applied in I. A. No. 4324 of 1973 for the appointment of a commissioner to seize the vehicle and to have it sold. By an order dated 28th February, 1973 the city civil Court ordered the seizure of the vehicle from the owner and it was accordingly seized. The vehicle was ultimately sold under orders of Court on 7th June, 1974 and a sum of Rs. 22,200 was realised. Under orders of Court the said sale proceeds has been paid out to the petitioner. 3. Some time after the filing of the said suit the petitioner was served with a notice from the first respondent ‘for payment of a sum of Rs. 22,200 was realised. Under orders of Court the said sale proceeds has been paid out to the petitioner. 3. Some time after the filing of the said suit the petitioner was served with a notice from the first respondent ‘for payment of a sum of Rs. 21,393.64 said to be the tax due by the owner in respect of the said vehicle under threat of coercive proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner resisted the said demand by sending a registered notice to the first and third respondents stating that he is not liable to pay the tax in question, that he is only a creditor who is pursuing his remedies in a Court of law, that he was never in possession of the vehicle and that as such he cannot be proceeded against for the amount due by the owner of the vehicle. Notwithstanding the said objections, a notice was issued by, the first respondent on 28th January, 1974 calling upon the petitioner to pay the entire amount of Rs. 21,393-64 within seven days ‘from the receipt thereof under threat of coercive process under the Revenue Recovery Act. The validity of the said proceedings No. C3| 6498 of 1973 dated 28th January, 1974 issued by the first respondent has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. According to the petitioner the tax claimed in the impugned notice is payable only by the operator as defined under section 2 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation and Passenger Goods Act, 1963, that the petitioner who seized the vehicle through a Court of law as a creditor cannot fall within that definition, and that therefore the tax cannot be recovered from the petitioner. 5. The counter-affidavit proceeds on the basis that as the petitioner himself has informed the Regional Transport Authorities at Kottayam that he has taken possession of the vehicle he comes within the definition of operator as defined in section 2 (b) of the said Act, and that therefore, the disputed amount can be recovered ‘from the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the tax in respect of the vehicle is payable only by the operator under section 3 (3) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the tax in respect of the vehicle is payable only by the operator under section 3 (3) of the Act. Section 10 which provides for the recovery of the tax under the Revenue Recovery Act clearly says that if an operator fails to pay the amount demanded the amount can be recovered from the operator as if it were arrears of land revenue. Therefore, unless the petitioner comes under the definition of an ‘operator’ under the Act, the amount due by the said Luka the owner of the vehicle, cannot be recovered from the petitioner. 6. Section 2 (b) defines operator as follows: “ ‘Operator’ means the owner or the person having possession or control of the vehicle and includes any person whose name is entered in the permit as holder thereof.” Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle. But, it is claimed by the respondents that the petitioner had taken possession and control of the vehicle. In this case from the facts stated above, the petitioner was never in actual possession and control of the vehicle. It is true that the petitioner approached the Court for appointment of a Commissioner to seize the vehicle. A Commissioner was appointed at his instance for taking possession of the vehicle. The vehicle was taken possession of by the Commissioner in pursuance of the orders of the Court and "ultimately the vehicle has been sold by orders of Court. The mere fact that at the instance of the petitioner the Court seized the vehicle and ordered the sale thereof will not make the petitioner a person possessing the vehicle. As a creditor and in pursuance of the terms of the hire purchase agreement the petitioner is entitled to seize the vehicle but, that is only for the purpose of realising the amount due by him and not for the purpose of operating or controlling the vehicle. Therefore, the fact that the vehicle was seized by the Commissioner at the instance of the petitioner under orders of Court will not bring him within the definition of an operator. 7. Therefore, the fact that the vehicle was seized by the Commissioner at the instance of the petitioner under orders of Court will not bring him within the definition of an operator. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that under section 11 (A) the creation of any charge or transfer of the vehicle by the operator during the pendency of any proceedings under the Act will be void if it has been done with intention to defeat the recovery of the tax or any other amount due by him under the Act; such charge or transfer will be void as against the claim for tax, and therefore the charge credited over the vehicle by Luka in favour of the petitioner will be void under section 11 (A). I do not see how section 11 (A) will affect the validity of the hire purchase agreement entered into by the petitioner with the said Luka. From the facts stated above it will be clear that the original hire purchase agreement was on 25th September, 1967 and the same has been renewed on 1st May, 1969 and 22nd November, 1970. Admittedly, the proceedings for recovery of the tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation and Passengers Goods Act commenced only in the year 1973. The charge has been created in respect of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner under the hire purchase agreement long before the proceedings are initiated. Therefore, the validity of the charge created in favour of the petitioner in respect of the vehicle under the hire purchase agreement cannot be affected by section 11 (A) of the Act. The proviso to section 11 (A) also says that the section is not intended to impair the right of the charge holde or transferee in good ‘faith and for consideration. The charge has been created in favour of the petitioner long before and the transaction has also been entered into in good faith and for consideration. Section 11 (A) cannot therefore be taken advantage of by the respondents to avoid the transaction of hire purchase agreement between the petitioner and the said Luka, the owner of the vehicle. 8. Even assuming that section 11 (A) can be invoked by the respondents that will only enable them to proceed against the operator, ignoring the transactions entered into by him with the petitioner. 8. Even assuming that section 11 (A) can be invoked by the respondents that will only enable them to proceed against the operator, ignoring the transactions entered into by him with the petitioner. That will not enable the authorities (respondents) to proceed against the petitioner directly to recover the amount which is due by the owner of the vehicle. 9. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner cannot in any event be made liable to pay the tax due by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.