IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7787 of 2009(P) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------- M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.VENUGOPALAN P.T.,LEGAL CONSULTANT, M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., SREEPADAM BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT. BY MR.RAJESH NAMBIAR, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR. 2. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. ASHRAF N.K., S/O.UMMER NAMBAN KUNNATH HOUSE, POST IRINGALLOOR, TIRUR, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER YAKOOB S/O.KAMMUKUTTY, PARAPPAN HOUSE, P.O.KIZHMURI, KUTTALLOOR, OORAGAM, MALAPPURAM. BY MR.P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7787 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the financier of stage carriage bearing Regn.No.KL-10/P-2196, of which the 3 rd respondent is the registered owner. According to the petitioner, he applied for fresh registration of the vehicle and that the said application was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Against Ext.P2, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That was rejected by Ext.P5 order passed by the 1 st respondent on the ground that the appeal filed under Section 57 is not maintainable. It is challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition has been filed. The reasoning of the 1 st respondent in Ext.P5 is that in Section 57 of the Act, an appeal against an order under Section 51 of the Act is not provided for and therefore, that the appeal has been rejected as not maintainable. It is the correctness of this order, which is to be examined in this writ petition. 2. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with transfer of ownership of motor vehicles. Section 51 of the Act provides for WP(C) No.7787/2009 -2- special provisions regarding motor vehicles subject to hire purchase agreement, etc. The petitioner submits that he made the request for fresh registration in terms of Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was rejected by Ext.P2. As already noticed, according to the 1 st respondent, since appeal is not provided against an order under Section 51, Ext.P3 appeal was not maintainable. 3. In my view, the view taken by the 1 st respondent in Ext.P5 is erroneous. As already stated, Section 50 of the Act provides for transfer of ownership. Section 51 provides for the procedural formalities to be complied with in respect to motor vehicles subject to hire purchase agreement etc. A reading of this section shows that this section is more a procedural one and the substantive right of transfer of ownership is dealt with under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, Ext.P2 is essentially an order passed dealing with an application under Section 50 of the Act. If so, it can be seen that Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against the orders under Section 50 and if so, Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order is a maintainable one. For this reason, I set aside WP(C) No.7787/2009 -3- Ext.P5 and direct the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner with notice to all concerned and pass orders on its merits. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the contentions and it is entirely up to the 1 st respondent to deal with the contentions and pass orders thereon. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg