IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16002 of 2009(U) PETITIONER(S): K.Y. SADIK MOHAMMED, S/O. BAVA YOUSAF, M/S. KYS MOTORS, KADATHY, MARKET.P.O, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSP0RT OFFICER, MALLAPPALLY. 2. THE ICICI BANK LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SKYLINE CITADEL, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE FOCUZ MOTORS, FOCUZ TOWERS, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 4. TATA MOTORS LTD., 3RD FLOOR, TATUS TOWERS, N.H BYE PASS ROAD, PADIVATTOM, COCHIN - 682 024, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 5. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 6. EAPEN.V.K, VEDIKATTIL HOUSE, THALLIYOOR.P.O, VENNIKULAM, MALLAPALLY, PATHANAMATHITTA DISTRICT. 7. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, RTO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GEORGIE SIMON SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R2 SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R2 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R2 SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL FOR R2 SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R5 & 7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16002 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the owner of a Tata 407 Model vehicle (school bus) has approached this Court challenging the rejection of his application for registration of the vehicle for the reason that it was not certified as required by Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. According to the petitioner, he has purchased the vehicle from a financier. The vehicle was originally registered in the name of the 6th respondent. The said vehicle was re-possessed by the financier since the 6th respondent defaulted payment of instalments due to him. The petitioner contends that the vehicle was not registered on the basis of unsustainable contentions. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent and respondents 5 and 7. As per the counter affidavit, refusal to register the petitioner's W.P.(C)No.16002/2009 2 vehicle was on the ground that he has made modifications to the vehicle extending its body by 190 cms., which is in excess of 60% of the wheel base of 310 cms. 3. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1143/2010 praying for a direction to the first respondent to transfer his application together with the entire records connected thereto, to the 7th respondent. According to the counsel, since he is a person residing within the limits of the 7th respondent, the power to register the vehicle is vested in the said respondent. The Government Pleader has no objection to the application and the records being transferred to the 7th respondent. But, he points out that it is not possible to register the vehicle in view of the objections that are subsisting. 4. It is for the Registering authority to consider the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass necessary orders thereon. Since it is submitted that the 7th respondent is the authority W.P.(C)No.16002/2009 3 empowered to do so, I feel that a direction to transfer the application of the petitioner to the 7th respondent can be granted. 5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to transfer the application for registration submitted by the petitioner which is pending before the said authority along with all the connected records, to the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the petitioner's application along with the connected records. Needless to mention that the application of the petitioner shall be considered after due inspection of the vehicle also. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/