IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31533 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PAUL VARGHESE, EATTICKAL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, VELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM, SRI.JOY C. PAUL, SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM – 686 001. 2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM – 686 001. 3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRIPUNITHURA – 682 301. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.31533 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 application for permanent registration of a motor vehicle. Earlier, accepting the same a temporary registration number has been given as KL-39-C-TEMP- 4413. The grievance of the petitioner is that subsequently the second respondent has returned the application. According to the petitioner, when such an application is submitted, the second respondent cannot refuse to receive the application and, in fact, he is duty bound to receive it and to pass orders thereon. In view of the admitted fact that the application submitted by the petitioner for registration of his vehicle was returned, I do not propose to consider the other contentions raised in this writ petition on merits. A combined reading of Rules 41 and 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would suggest that the second respondent is duty bound to accept an application for registration of a motor vehicle if it is accompanied by the requisite fee and documents, particulars and information. The definite case of the petitioner is that Ext.P9 application was submitted along with requisite fee and such other documents, particulars and information. When once such an application is submitted, it is up to the competent authority to pass orders thereon, in accordance WP(C).No.31533/2010 2 with law. It is a duty primarily cast upon the respondents. Therefore, there is no justification to refuse to receive Ext.P9 application. Considering the fact that the respondents are yet to receive the application and to pass orders thereon I do not think it proper to consider the rival contentions on merits, at this stage. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- The petitioner may resubmit Ext.P9 application to the second respondent to enable the respondents to take a decision thereon in accordance with the relevant provisions under the Act. In case the petitioner resubmits the application, the second respondent shall receive the same and consider it in terms of the provisions under section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of its receipt. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with respect to the merits of the rival contentions. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS WP(C).No.31533/2010 3