IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24909 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAGHAVAN, NAMBRATHUKARA U.P. SCHOOL, P.O. NADUVATHUR, KOYLANDY. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON. RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, KOYILANDY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24909/2008-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE KL-10 L 6869. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.NOS.763,786 AND 725 OF 2005 DTD. 06/06/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.23684/05 DTD. 11/09/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD. 13/09/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 26/12/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 24909 OF 2008 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Manager of a school. According to him, he had purchased a bus bearing registration No. KL10/L 6869 for using as a school bus. It would appear that there were disputes between the registered owner and the financier and proceedings were pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mananthavady. Before that court, petitioner filed an application for interim custody and that was allowed by Ext. P2 order. 2. Subsequently, he wanted a permit for using the vehicle as a school bus. When the application made in this behalf was rejected, the petitioner approached this Court and filed a writ petition as W.P. (C) No. 23684/05. In that writ petition an interim order was passed on 22.8.2005 directing consideration of his application. In pursuance to the interim order his application for permit was considered and permit was also granted. Finally the writ petition W.P.(C) No. 24909 OF 2008 -2- was disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment recording the grant of permit in his favour and directing that the grant will be subject to the orders of the competent forum in the dispute concerning the right over the vehicle. It is stated that Ext. P4 is the permit granted in pursuance to the interim order referred to above. Petitioner submits that he has been using the vehicle till now. 3. Petitioner submits that he has been using the vehicle till now and that as the vehicle has become old, he wanted to get it replaced. As a requirement for making an application for replacement, he wanted to get the vehicle transferred in his favour and the same endorsed in the R.C. book. Ext. P5 is the application that he made in this behalf. 4. As far as the request for transfer of registration is concerned, so long as the dispute between the registered owner and the financier remains unresolved, it is premature. Therefore, at this stage it will not be possible to issue any direction in this behalf. 5. But then, the fact remains that as the bus has become too old, petitioner wants to get the vehicle replaced. As can be seen from Ext. P2 judgment, taking note of the fact that the vehicle has been released to the petitioner to be used as a school bus, this W.P.(C) No. 24909 OF 2008 -3- Court directed consideration of his permit application, despite the fact that he was not the registered owner. It is also taking into account the user of the vehicle that permit was granted to him. Therefore, I am of the view that though the transfer of registration in his favour is normally a requirement to apply for replacement, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it will be unreasonable to insist on such a condition. 6. Therefore, it is directed that in case the petitioner makes an application for replacement of the vehicle, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders thereon shall be passed. However, it is directed that if replacement is granted, the same will be subject to the conditions that are imposed by this Court in Ext. P2 judgment and also on condition that the petitioner shall retain the existing vehicle, ie., KL 10/L 6869, in his custody without alienation or encumbering the same in any manner until the dispute between the registered owner and financier is resolved as mentioned in Ext.P2 judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-