IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 5315 of 2008(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. I.C.I.C.I BANK LTD,REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,RAPG DIVISION,3RD AND 4TH FLOOR,EMGEE SQUARE,M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-35. 2. E.K.SURESH BABU,NANDANAM TOURS AND TRAVELS,MUNICIPAL BUS STAND BUILDING,CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,TRIVANDRUM. 2. REGISTERING AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM. 3. ADDL.REGISTERING AUTHORITY, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. VIJAYAN,KULAVUNTHALAMEL PUTHEN VEEDU, CHALIKOTTUKONAM, P.O MARUTHOOR,NEYYATTINKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.5315/2008 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO.21. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT REQUESTING TO REGISTER THE VEHICLE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 7/02/208 NO.C21/35908/T/07. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.9601 OF 2007 DTD. 30/03/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.23993 OF 2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 5315 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that an application made for obtaining new registration for a vehicle has been rejected by Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent. Reasons stated in Ext.P4 is that the application for registration should be filed along with the original documents proposed as per the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1947. 2. Petitioner had financed the 4th respondent for purchase of the vehicle and on account of the defaults that were committed by the 4th respondent, the vehicle was re-possessed and it was thereupon the application was made. According to the first petitioner the vehicle is to be registered in the name of the second petitioner. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that if the vehicle is to be registered in the name of second petitioner, the application should have been made to the 3rd respondent and not to the 1st respondent. 3. As already noticed, the reason for declining the registration of the vehicle is want of original documents. WPC No. 5315 OF 2008 2 Petitioner submits that the original documents were available with the 4th respondent and hence they are not in a position to produce the documents. 4. Though notice has been served on the 4th respondent, there is no representation on his behalf. 5. Identical issues have been decided by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in WPC 9601 of 2007 and Ext.P6 judgment in WPC 2399 of 2007. In those judgments it was directed that if the claim for registration is found to be genuine, the concerned officer shall register the vehicle in accordance with law on remittance of necessary fee, without insisting on the production of original documents. Therefore, following Exts.P5 and P6 judgments, this writ petition is also disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to apply to the 3rd respondent and if the 3rd respondent finds that the request made is genuine, registration shall be granted in accordance with law without insisting on the production of original documents. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 5315 OF 2008 3