IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22257 of 2009(B) PETITIONER(S): K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUMARASWAMI, ROYAL ILLAM, M.S.R.TLANE, THYCAUD P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.VINOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR. 3. SURAJ APPUNNI, KOTTEPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANDANASSERY, ARIYANOOR P.O., TRICHUR. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, I.C.I.C.BANK LTD., MUMBAI. 5. THE MANAGER, I.C.I.BANK, M.G.ROAD, (OOP.PADMA THEATRE), ERNAKULAM. 6. A.SARAVANAN, S/O.AZHAKAPPAN CHETTIAR, AUTHORISED AGENT OF I.C.I.C.BANK, E.V.R.A 93, EDAPALANI, JAGATHI P.O., TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R5 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R5 SRI.V.R.REKESH FOR R5 SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA FOR R5 SRI.P.A.ABISH FOR R5 SRI. K.K.N. SHERIFF GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 22257 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The 5th respondent-Bank offered a vehicle hypothecated to the bank seized from the defaulter in payment of dues, for sale. The petitioner's offer for purchasing the same is stated to have been accepted by the bank, pursuant to which the petitioner claims to have paid Rs. 7.75 lakhs in full and final settlement of the purchase price of the vehicle, which was surrendered to the 5th respondent-bank by the 3rd respondent. However, despite a request on 14-5-2009 for the same, respondents 5 and 6 have not delivered the sold vehicle to the petitioner, is the complaint raised in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6 gave only the registration book and the vehicle permit. The petitioner feels that respondents 4 to 6 have played a fraud on the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has filed a complaint before the police in respect of the same, which is pending. The petitioner now apprehends that respondents 4 and 5 are trying to obtain a duplicate registration certificate in respect of the vehicle so sold to the petitioner so as to enable them to sell the vehicle to somebody else. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to issue duplicate registration book under Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act or under any other statute enabling respondents 4 and 5 to obtain duplicate registration or fresh registration in respect of vehicle no. KL46 A/921 without hearing the petitioner or his authorized agent in person.” 2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the contentions of the petitioner. They dispute the sale and payment of purchase price. They deny having anything to do with the 6th respondent. W.P.C. No. 22257/09 -: 2 :- 3. I am not inclined to consider the validity of the rival contentions of the parties on merits insofar as the only prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is for an opportunity of being heard before a duplicate registration book is issued to respondents 4 and 5. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to see that proceedings , if any, initiated under Section 51 or any other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the vehicle in question shall only be after issuing a notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity of being heard. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.