IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 6209 of 1997(L) ---------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. ACHAMMA OUSEPH, PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIATHODE.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ANTO P.O., PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIATHODE.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. BABY.P.O, PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIATHODE.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. PAPPACHAN.P.O, PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIATHODE.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. VALSA GEORGE, PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIATHODE.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. JAIJY JOSE, PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIATHODE.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. SHINEY TOMY, PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIATHODE.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. SAINA ANTO, PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM, NORTH KUTHIATHODE.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF BOATS, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. OP.No. 6209 of 1997(L) 2 4. THE PUTHENVELIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-683 504. 5. S.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, GOVINDAVILASOM, MILLS ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA FOR R5 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 6209 of 1997(L) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER No.N.B.1357/96 DATED 6/2/1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF ANNUAL LICENCE DATED 2/8/1996 ISSUED BY THE CANAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM IN RESPECT OF THE BOAT M.B.FATHIMA MATHA. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER No.C2.13628/95 DATED 5/5/1995 BY THE RESPONDENT AND TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER No.C2.13628/95 DATED 14/6/1995 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, AND TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 20/6/1995 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER No.D2.15991/96 DATED 5/6/1996 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER No.M.B.1357/94 DATED 5/8/1996 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P. No.15459 OF 1996 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10/12/1996. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R5(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE THIRD PETITONER WITH THIS RESPONDENT DT.15/1/1995. EXHIBIT R5(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENT OF Rs.1.5 LAKHS DT.25/4/1995. OP.No. 6209 of 1997(L) 4 EXHIBIT R5(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.12/6/1995 OF THE SECRETARY OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R5(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION RATIFYING EXT.R5(c) PROCEEDINGS MADE BY THE COMMITTEE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R5(e) : TRUE COPY OF THE DEED TRANSFERRING THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S BOAT TO T.N.KRISHNAN NAIR THAZHATHU VEEDU DT. 13/2/1997. EXHIBIT R5(f) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER EFFECTING TRANSFER OF THE BOAT DT.19/2/1997. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P. No.6209 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The main challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 and P5 orders passed by the 2nd and 4th respondents respectively. As per Ext.P1 order, the 2nd respondent allowed to change the name of the motor Vessel “M.B.Fathima Matha” as “M.B.Velankanni Matha” and the 4th respondent also allowed the request for transfer of ownership registered in the name of one S.P.Nair who is the 5th respondent herein. It is the above order challenged in this writ petition. 2. The 3rd petitioner had entered into a contract with the Puthenvelikkara Grama Panchayat connected with the ferry at Puthenvelikkara Thelamthuruthu Manjaly ferry. According to the panchayath, out of the contract, certain amount was due to the panchayat and the panchayath initiated recovery proceedings and finally the boat in question namely, M.B.Fathima Matha was attached by the Panchayat and finally, the boat was sold to the 5th op. 6209/97 2 respondent. In due course, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5 ownership and possession certificate with respect to the boat M.B Fathima Matha in favour of the 5th respondent. On the basis of the said certificate, the 5th respondent approached the 2nd respondent to change the ownership and also the name. Initially, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P7 order which was challenged by the petitioners before this Court by filing OP No.15459/96. As per Ext.P8 judgment, this court directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter after having heard the petitioners. Thus, Ext.P1 order was issued under the above background. Now the challenge is against the Ext.P1 on the ground that the Director of Panchayat, as per Ext.P6 informed the 2nd respondent that the Department cannot approve the ownership and possession certificate dated 20.6.95 issued by the Secretary of Grama Panchayath and further informed that the 2nd respondent can take further steps in the matter after consulting the legal representative of the registered owner of the boat. Thus according to the petitioner, the Director of Panchayat has held that the certificate issued op. 6209/97 3 by the panchayath is not valid and proper. 3. On going through Ext.P1 order, it can be seen that the 2nd respondent is the competent authority under Rule 8 (1) of Travancore Public Canals and Ferries Rules 1100 M.E to effect the change of ownership etc. and he can act upon the report of the original owner of the vessels. The above rule is quoted hereunder for convenience: “8 (1) If the ownership of a vessel is changed during the year for which the vessel is licensed or registered in the case of steam and motor vessels, the original owner shall report the fact to the Chief Inspector of Boats Ernakulam, who shall, upon receipt of written application of the original owner and the transferee, alter the 'D' form by substituting the name of the latter for that of the former, and to the Canal Officer, who has to issue 'A' form licence or 'F' form registration certificate for the vessel, on production of the 'D' form shall alter the ownership in the 'A' form or F' form, as the case may be, in accordance with the change of ownership noted in the 'D' form”. In the present case, the 5th respondent has produced Ext.P5 ownership and possession certificate with respect to the boat in question in favour of the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent is not bound to go beyond Ext.P5. In the op. 6209/97 4 absence of any order canceling Ext.P5 or staying operation of said Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent is bound to act upon Ext.P5. As the petitioner miserably failed to produce any such document before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has no other way but to pass an order in exercise of the powers vested upon him which he had done as per Ext.P1. I find no illegality or irregularity with Ext.P1 order. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Kvm/- op. 6209/97 5 V.K.MOHANAN, J O.P.NO.6209 OF 1997 JUDGMENT Dated: 20.8.2009 op. 6209/97 6