IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 26708 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DILIP FINANCE CORPORATION,NO.22/2, VENGEESWARA NAGAR, FIRST MAIN ROAD, VIDAPALANI, CHENNAI-600 026, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.K.MUNEER, AGED 40 YEARS, C/O.CHENNAI AUTO CONSULTANT,CHALODE, P.O.EDAYANUR, DIST.KANNUR-670 595. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER AND ADDL.REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. R.T.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KANNAN NAMBIAR, RAMATH THEKKE VEETIL, MAYYIL, VELAM, P.O.MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 731. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.26708 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the financier of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 13/F 4291. The second respondent availed a loan for purchasing the said vehicle from the Petitioner. Chronic default committed by the second respondent in the matter of repayment towards the said loan account made the petitioner to take possession of the said vehicle and transfer it in the name of one Sri.V.J Chacko. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for effecting transfer of the registration certificate in his name before the first respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that on account of the objections raised by the second respondent, the first respondent is not issuing registration certificate in the name of the petitioner in terms of Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ext.P3 is the application filed for issuance of a fresh registration certificate along with the covering letter dated 10.1.2000 submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the required fee for the said purpose was also remitted. It is alleging inordinate delay in the matter of passing orders thereon that this Writ Petition has been filed. W.P.(C) NO.26708/2010 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader, upon, instructions submitted that the second respondent has preferred a complaint against one Sri.Muneer and one Sri.Chacko before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur under Section 457 and 388 of the Indian Penal Code and it is pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur as C.C.No.482/2009. It was in the said circumstances that the first respondent has deferred a decision on Ext.P3. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 application under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Taking note of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition, notice was issued to the second respondent in this proceedings. However, despite the receipt of the notice, the second respondent did not enter appearance. In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder:- The first respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner, second respondent and all other persons concerned. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.26708/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.26708/2010 4