IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27714 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.RAVEECHANDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, MULLAPONE HOUSE, EZHUMATTOOR MURI, EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR. BY GP I V PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 27714 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the allegation that he is the owner of a car covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration. Obviously, going by Ext.P1, one Jessy Philip is the registered owner. Petitioner stands by Ext.P2, an agreement executed by the said person, regarding sale of the vehicle to the petitioner. Going by the compulsions of the Motor Vehicle Act, it is impermissible for the writ court to assume, that too for the technical purpose of considering the sustainability of the application for temporary release, of a vehicle involved in an abkari offence, that the vehicle was transferred and the petitioner has the locus to apply for release of the vehicle or to sustain a writ petition on refusal to consider the request for release of the vehicle. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the registered owner may also be permitted to join this writ petition. I am afraid that it is not for this court to invite a person to join a writ petition even when it is not on Wpc 27714/2009 2 record that the said registered owner had applied for release of the vehicle in terms of the abkari laws. Having found that the petitioner has no shred of right to seek release of the vehicle, as of now, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right, if any, of the registered owner to seek release of the vehicle, from the competent statutory authority. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/6/10