IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 17986 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.KOYA MOIDEEN, S/O.MOHAMMED, KUNHAVARAN MARAKKARAKATHU HOUSE, PARAVANNA P.O. TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.SANKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, TIRUR. 2. SAKTHI FINANCE LIMITED, 5,2248 D, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.S.SHARAN FOR R2 SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.17986 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 notice whereby the petitioner has been directed to deliver certificate of registration in respect of a vehicle purchased by the petitioner on hire purchase basis from the 2nd respondent financier or to file a representation in respect thereof on the ground that the financier, who has repossessed the vehicle, has applied for transfer of registration. The petitioner submits that the vehicle was seized illegally and the financier has not complied with the legal provisions applicable for getting the registration transferred in his name. The petitioner also submits that against the illegal seizure he has already filed a police complaint which is pending. I am of opinion that in so far as Ext.P7 is only a notice directing either to deliver the registration certificate or to file his representation, it is perfectly open to the petitioner to file representation instead of surrendering the certificate of registration, in which case, the registering authority has to take a decision after hearing both sides. Therefore, leaving all the contentions of the petitioner open, with liberty to file representation as directed in Ext.P7, this writ petition is dismissed. It would be open to the petitioner to pursue Ext.P4, in which case, the 5th respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2