THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 12535 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in trying to effect the registration of the vehicle lorry bearing No. AP 16 Y 7288 of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is owner of lorry bearing No. AP 16 Y 7288, having purchased the same in the year 2007 by availing loan from respondent No.3. He is regularly paying installments to respondent No.3. But, he is due certain installments, Respondent No.3 had seized the vehicle in question without issuing any notice. On coming to know about the seizure of the vehicle, respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 to get transfer the said vehicle in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner informed respondent No.2 that the registration cannot be done without any notice to him. Respondent No.2 does not have any right to transfer the vehicle without his consent. The said vehicle stands in his name and hypothecation charge is reflected in the registration certificate. Respondent No.3 is unable to sell the vehicle without the consent of the petitioner and respondent No.2 cannot register the vehicle in question in favour of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 can only sell the vehicle by following due process of law i.e., to file a Civil Suit for recovery of installments due. Respondent No.2 has no right to seize the vehicle directly without approaching the Court and basing on such seizure, respondent No.2 cannot transfer the vehicle. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner is a the registered owner of Goods Carriage lorry bearing No.AP 16 Y 7288, which is having Hypothecation agreement with respondent No.3; that respondent No.3 submitted a representation, dated 10.08.2009, and objected for the transaction stating that the documents filed by the petitioner are fake; that the petitioner with the help of one P.Satyanarayana and also with the connivance of other Finance Company cheated the officials of respondent No.3 by producing fake documents; that a complaint was lodged before the Station House Officer, Suryaraopeta Crime Police Station, Vijayawada in Crime No.190 of 2009 under Section 468, 471 and 420 IPC of Law and Order, Suryaraopeta Police Station, Vijayawada; that the petitioner and Gudivaka Veera Venkata Satyanarayana were arrested and remanded to judicial custody; that on 29.06.2009 respondent No.3 has stated that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and as he failed to pay the installments, the said vehicle was seized on 25.06.2009; that the Motor Vehicle Inspector verified about the keeping of the vehicle; that on 10.08.2009 respondent No.3 requested respondent No.2 to issue a fresh Registration Certificate in the name of its company; that after examination of the matter, a Registered Notice in Form No.37 for cancellation and for issue of Fresh Registration Certificate in the name of respondent No.3 -Financier was sent through registered post with acknowledgment due; that but, the said notice was returned unserved from the postal department; that the Motor Vehicle Inspector was entrusted with the duty of serving of notice in Form No.37 on the registered owner, but Motor Vehicle Inspector had informed that on 01.06.2010 the registered owner is not residing at the address mentioned in Registration Certificate and submitted a report with the names and addresses of neighbours. 4. There is no reply affidavit filed by the petitioners denying the contents in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2. 5. From the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that respondent No.3 filed an application for cancellation of Registration Certificate standing in the name of the petitioner and for issue of fresh Registration Certificate in the name of respondent No.3-Financier. It is also clear from the counter-affidavit that respondent No.3- Financier seized the vehicle in question and after seizure of the vehicle, the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector checked the Vehicle. Even respondent No.2 has stated that a notice is required under Form No.37 for taking further action, but the same has not been served on the petitioner. When respondent No.2 is trying to serve the said notice on the petitioner, he was not available in the house and therefore, notice under Form No.37 could not be served on him. Admittedly, notice under Form No.37 has not been served on the petitioner. An opportunity can be given to the petitioner to put forward his case to the notice under From No.37. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner is now admittedly having knowledge about Form No.37 notice, dated 22.07.2009, he is directed to give an explanation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, appropriate decision has to be taken by respondent No.2 in accordance with law. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J OCTOBER 28, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 12535 OF 2011 Between: …PETITIONER Remalla Sambasiva Rao AND Government of Andhra Pradesh and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following :