IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33277 of 2008(J) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.K.ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, CHULLIKKATTIL HOUSE, IRINGAVOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. C.MANOJ, S/O RAMAN, CHEKKULATH HOUSE, KARUVAPPURAM WEST, POST MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33277/2008 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 13/03/08. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 20/08/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. 15/10/08. EXT..P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23/09/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.33277 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was the registered owner of a tourist motor car bearing registration No.KL-10-T-3589 having permit No.10/190/2004. He transferred the vehicle to the 3rd respondent and the permit was also transferred as is seen from Ext.P1 proceedings of the first respondent. 2. According to the petitioner all the documents in relation to the vehicle including registration certificate and the permit, which were submitted to the first respondent were forwarded by the first respondent to the 2nd respondent. Petitioner states that the documents were not received by the 2nd respondent and as a result there of neither the petitioner nor the 3rd respondent are not in a position to ply the vehicle. It is also his case that the 3rd respondent has not paid the sale consideration which is due WP(c).No.33277/08 2 to him. 3. Learned Government Pleader has instructions in the matter. She submits that the first respondent had forwarded the records to the 2nd respondent by registered post. It is stated that, on receipt of the complaint that the document were not received by the 2nd respondent, the first respondent has taken up the matter with the Superintendent of Post Office, Thiruvananthapuram and that the matter is being enquired into. It is also stated that, in the meantime they are willing to give a provisional certificate. 4. Thus the fact that the documents were entrusted to the first respondent and that in the process of its transmission to the 2nd respondent the same were misplaced, is not in dispute. If that be so, the same cannot cause prejudice to the petitioner and the grievance has to be redressed. In view of this, it is ordered that the first respondent shall issue necessary provisional certificates to the petitioner, on the strength of which the petitioner or the 3rd respondent will WP(c).No.33277/08 3 be entitled to ply the vehicle mentioned above. It is also directed that enquiry into the misplaced documents will be expedited by the first respondent and if the documents are traced out, the same shall be sent to the petitioner without any delay. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.33277/08 4