IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16369 of 2010(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL, SERVICES LTD.,ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,U.BIJU RAJ. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.P.P.BIJU. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. LEELAKUMARI,W/O.LATE.AYYAPPAN NAIR, PRAJEESH NIVAS,THEKKENADA,VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16369 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a financier in respect of a Maruthi 800 car bearing Chassis No.MA3ECA12S02731563 and Engine No.F8BIN3990829 purchased by the second respondent on 13.8.2008 from M/s Indus Motor Co.Pvt.Ltd., Ernakulam. On the same day, the vehicle was temporarily registered in the office of the first respondent. True copy of the temporary registration of the said vehicle is Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, the second respondent failed to take permanent registration of the vehicle and also failed to repay the loan taken by the petitioner. She, therefore, surrendered the vehicle to the petitioner and it was re-possessed. 2. The petitioner wants to register the vehicle in its name. However, for registration of the vehicle, Form No.21, Sale Certificate and temporary registration certificate are necessary. It is the case of the petitioner that while surrendering the vehicle, the said documents were not handed over by the second respondent. The second respondent informed that the original records were missing. The petitioner is in possession of duplicate copies of the documents required for registration. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions for registration of the wpc No.16369/2010 2 vehicle on production of duplicate copies of the necessary documents. 3. The question as to whether the original registration records of the vehicle have been lost or not can be ascertained only with notice to the second respondent. Since the matter has to be decided by the competent authority, the first respondent, I do not propose to go into the question at this stage. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application for registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner on production of duplicate copies of the original registration records, after issuing notice to and hearing the second respondent also. The matter shall be considered and a decision shall be taken thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/