IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10625 of 2008(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SAJEEV MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. SAJEEV MATHEW & COMPANY,CHERUMATTATHIL PLAZA, ARAKUZHA ROAD JUNCTION, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (REGISTERING AUTHORITY), MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10625/2008 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFIED ISSUED BY T.V.S.& SONS, ERNAKULAM DTD. 9/11/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BYTHE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA DTD. 17/01/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S.NAMAKKAL TRAILERS DTD. 7/02/2008 IN FORM NO.21. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE DTD. 11/02/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT SIGNED ON 18/2/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.6821/2008 DTD. 4/03/2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 14/02/2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 19/03/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 10625 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: APRIL 4, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he is the owner of a tractor chassis, duplicate sale certificate of which is Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, after obtaining temporary registration, the chassis was taken to Namakkal in Tamil Nadu for trailer body building. It is stated that during the course of the transit of the chassis, the original sale certificate and other documents were lost. 2. On its return, the petitioner applied for its registration on the strength of duplicate sale certificate and other documents that were obtained by him in the meanwhile. However, that was rejected on one occasion. The rejection was interfered by this court in Ext.P6 judgment in WP(C) 6821/2008 with notice to the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent reconsidered the matter and passed Ext.P8 order, once again rejecting his application for the reason that in terms of Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, registration of a motor vehicle is not possible WP(C) 10625/08 Page numbers with duplicate documents such as sale certificate in form 21, form 22 etc. It is challenging this order, the writ petition has been filed. 3. As already noticed, Ext.P1 is the duplicate sale certificate that was produced by the petitioner which itself contains an endorsement that the original has been lost and that the original has been cancelled. Ext.P2 is a certificate issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha, acknowledging the receipt of a petition complaining of the loss of the original documents and certifying that investigation is still pending. Thus, it is more than clear that the originals have been lost. 4. True, the rule requires the production of original, but then, in a situation like this, unless registration is permitted, the only course open to the owner is to scrap the vehicle. Therefore, when the petitioner has produced Exts.P1 and P2 which itself show that the duplicate of the sale certificate has been issued by the seller himself and there is an endorsement that the original has been lost and is cancelled, I see no justification for the respondent to decline to act upon the same. This is all the more so when Ext.P2 certificate is also made available. In view of this, I feel the WP(C) 10625/08 Page numbers matter needs to be reconsidered as, otherwise, the vehicle cannot be used at all. 5. Accordingly, quashing Ext.P8, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the respondent shall pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-