IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 3004 of 2008(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- MOHANKUMAR, KUMBAZHETHU HOUSE, MANAPALLI SOUTH MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, RTO OFFICE, KOLLAM. 5. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R.T.O. OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 6. JOINT R.T.O., SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 7. JOINT R.T.O., SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA. 8. M.MADHU NADALAYIL HOUSE, VALLIKUNNAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR - R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.3004/2008 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-07/AA-3399. EXT.P2(A TO M): COPY OF THE RECEIPTS (13 IN NOS.) ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. OF CONTRACT NO.EY-454. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DTD.27/06/2002 ISSUED FROM ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.21/03/2007 OF JFCM COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN CC.NO.23/2004. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/03/2007 IN WP(C) NO. 23570/06 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/12/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/03/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE TELEGRAM ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.9807/2004 OF JFCM COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/07/2005 OF JFCM COURT, MAVELIKKARA IN C.C.NO.961/2005. EXT.P11(A TO E):COPIES SOF THE TRIP SHEETS (5 IN NOS.) OF THE STAGE CARRIAGE BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-7AA/3399. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/03/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.R.P.351/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R8(A): COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.30 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH 8TH RESPONDENT DTD. 3/5/2001. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.3004/2008 G EXT.R8(B): COPY OF THE NO OBJECTIN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FINANCIER DTD. 7/3/2001. EXT.R8(C): COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 3/5/2001. EXT.R8(D): COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT ON 25/07/2001. EXT.R8(E): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.25698/2005 DTD. 27/03/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.3004/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P6. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that transfer of ownership of stage carriage bus bearing registration No.KL- 07-AA-3399 endorsed by the 7th respondent in favour of the 8th respondent on 7.5.2007 is illegal and void. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. 2. The dispute is between the petitioner on the one side and the 8th respondent on the other side. According to the petitioner he had purchased the vehicle in question on 9.10.2000 retaining the hire purchase agreement with M/s, Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. According to him, the 8th respondent was managing the vehicle on his behalf and taking advantage of that situation, documents were fabricated and his signatures were forged. Utilising the 2 forged document he got the vehicle transferred into his name on 3.5.2001 and necessary endorsements were also got made on Ext.P1 registration certificate. It is stated that even after the transfer the petitioner continued in possession of the vehicle and was also paying the hire purchase dues as is reflected in Ext.P2 series receipts. 3. The petitioner submits that in 2003, when he came to know of the transfer effected using fabricated documents, steps were taken for canceling the endorsement of transfer. Alleging inaction on the part of the first respondent the petitioner filed WP(c).No.23570/06. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to enquire in to the matter and to take a decision on the application after affording an opportunity to both the parties. 4. It is consequent to above that after enquiry and hearing parties, Ext.P6 order was passed by the first respondent holding that the transfer effected in favour of the 8th respondent was after observing all prescribed formalities. He has also compared the signatures of the 3 petitioner and did not find any disparity from the signatures in form Nos.29 and 30. On this basis it was concluded that the transfer is a normal one and there is nothing irregular. It is challenging Ext.P6 and seeking consequential reliefs the writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the documents were fabricated and that Ext.P8 decision was rendered by the first respondent without adverting to the voluminous documents produced by him. It is also contended that the first respondent should not have decided on the genuineness of the signature but on the other hand should have got the same examined by an expert. On the other hand the counsel for the 8th respondent has contend that the transfer was normal and genuine one and that there was no circumstances warranting a conclusion to the contrary. He makes reference to Ext.R8 (a) which contains the signature of the petitioner and counter signature of the financier. Ext.R8(b) is also referred to, which is a non objection certificate issued by the financier. Similarly, Ext.R8 (c) is the order transferring the 4 permit in favour of the 8th respondent, copy of which is also marked to the petitioner also. It is also stated that following Ext.R8(c) by Ext.R8(d) permit was also granted as early as on 25.7.2001. The submission of the 8th respondent is that all these had happened at a time when the relationship between the parties was cordial. It is stated that the writ petition is only to be dismissed upholding Ext.P6. 6. As far as the correctness of Ext.P6 is concerned, the question that is to be examined is whether it has been rendered after adverting to the documents that were available before the first respondent and whether finding is perverse for any reason. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that the first respondent has referred to the relevant documents including form Nos.29 and 30 signed by the petitioner and the documents that were issued by the financier. All other documents which are necessary for transfer duly executed by the petitioner also has been taken into account. It is referring to aforesaid documents, the first respondent, on finding that the transfer is a normal one observing all procedure formalities, rejected the case of the petitioner. 5 7. I am not in a position to accept the plea of the petitioner that first respondent should not have taken it upon itself to decide the genuineness of the signature of the petitioner as contained in form Nos.29 and 30. By Ext.P5, this court directed the first respondent to decide the issue. The first respondent had no option but to decide the whole issue which included the genuineness of the signature as well. Though the petitioner submits that he had applied for having the signature verified by an expert, there is nothing on record to support this contention. Therefore I am not in a position to interfere with Ext.P6. 8. There are several proceedings between the parties before various courts and the last of which is the one which was disposed of by this court by Ext.P12. That was a revision filed by the petitioner before this court against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara in CC.No.961/2005 filed by the petitioner alleging the offence under Sections 406,467, 468 and 471 of the IPC against the 8th respondent. It is seen that the Magistrate had passed an order rejecting the petitioner's application to forward the 6 specimen signature for comparison to an expert and it also discharged the accused who is none other than the 8th respondent. 9. Both the parties have no case that the subject matter of the complaint in C.C.No.61/05 is anything other than the issue that is agitated in this writ petition. The aforesaid orders of the learned Magistrate was challenged in Crl.R.P.No.351/2008. By Ext.P12 order, this court set aside both the orders and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case and forward the documents for comparison of signature by an expert. It is stated that the Magistrate is in the process of forwarding the document for comparison as directed in Ext.P12 order. Once the report of the handwriting expert is received and the court decides the issue that will conclude the dispute on the genuineness of the signature. Once the issue is given a finality as above, irrespective of Ext.P6 order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner should have a freedom to take advantage of that order. 7 10. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 11. Ext.P6 is upheld as the decision is consistent with the materials that were available before the first respondent. But however, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the registering authority, depending upon the judgment/order of the Judicial first Class Magistrate Court, Mavelikkara in CCC.No.961/2005. 12. It is clarified that in the event of the petitioner makes such an application, the registering authority shall consider and pass necessary orders . Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the directions made as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 8