THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.14784 OF 2005 Dated : 13th September, 2005 Between: B. Narasimha, S/o. Janardhan 40 years, Occ; Driver, H.No.5-05, Sarvel, Narayanpur, Nalgonda District. .. Petitioner And 1. The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Authority (R.T.A.) Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2. The Manager, Hari Hara Auto Finance, Main Road, Choutuppal, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.14784 OF 2005 ORDER : The petitioner claims to be the owner of a lorry bearing No. AIC 4356. It is stated that he purchased the said vehicle with the finance provided by the 2nd respondent firm after hypothecating the vehicle with the 2nd respondent. The petitioner states that subsequently, on 22-3-2005 he paid back the said amount of Rs.50,000/- and in pursuance thereof, the 2nd respondent firm issued a No Objection Letter, dated 22-3- 2005 informing the Registering Authority, Nalgonda that they have no objection for cancelling the endorsement of hypothecation made in the Certificate of Registration. The petitioner also states that the Managing Partner of the second respondent firm has signed the application in Form-35 requesting the 1st respondent to make an entry of termination of hypothecation in terms of Section 51 (2) and (3) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that he has presented the same before the 1st respondent requesting to cancel the entry of hypothecation, the 1st respondent failed to consider the same. Hence, this writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to accept his application submitted in Form-35 and No Objection Letter issued by the 2nd respondent and to cancel the entry of hypothecation made in the Certificate of Registration of his vehicle. On behalf of the 1st respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, Nalgonda filed a counter-affidavit stating that they received a letter dated 1-3-2005 from the 2nd respondent stating that there was a change in the Managing Partner of their firm and requesting not to accept the Form No.35 or other Clearance Certificates signed by the erstwhile Managing Partner by name S. Anjaiah. The 2nd respondent has also furnished a list of vehicles in respect of which the termination of hypothecation was signed by the erstwhile Managing Partner. The vehicle claimed by the petitioner was also included in the list of vehicles furnished by the 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, the termination of entry of hypothecation has not been affected in the Certificate of Registration of the petitioner’s vehicle and the said fact was informed to the writ petitioner on 27-4-2005 itself. Hence, the action of the 1st respondent cannot be found fault with. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner having obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the 2nd respondent firm by duly hypothecating his vehicle, failed to repay the same. However, he has created a No Due Certificate in Form No.35 alleged to be signed by the then Managing Partner S. Anjaiah on 22- 3-2005. Since the said S. Anjaiah was indulging in several irregularities, he was replaced by V. Venkatesam as the Managing Partner and the same was informed to the 1st respondent by letter dated 1-3-2005 along with the Resolution of the Firm dated 1-3-2005. In the said letter, they also furnished a list of vehicles, in respect of which the No Due Certificate was signed by S. Anjaiah. I have heard the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent. Having regard to the rival claims made by both the parties, it is clear that the matter involves several disputed questions of fact. At the outset, it is to be noted that even according to the petitioner, he lost the receipts said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent firm acknowledging the alleged repayment of the loan. The only material placed before this Court by the petitioner is a xerox copy of a notice of termination of hypothecation issued in Form No.35 by one S. Anjaiah styling himself as Managing Partner of the 2nd respondent firm, which bears the date as 22-03- 2005. The specific case of the 2nd respondent is that the Certificate dated 22-03- 2005 is false and fabricated which was brought into existence in collusion with the then Managing Partner S. Anjaiah. It is also their case that as per the resolution dated 1-3-2005 passed by the firm, the said Anjaiah is no longer entitled to continue as Managing Partner and therefore all the certificates issued in the name of S. Anjaiah cannot be acted upon. Admittedly, they addressed a letter dated 1-3-2005 to the 1st respondent bringing all the aforesaid aspects to his notice and furnishing a list of vehicles, in respect of which the then Managing Partner S. Anjaiah has signed the clearance certificates. The said list includes the vehicle of the petitioner. The law is well settled that this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot inquire into such disputed questions of fact and record any finding as to the correctness of the allegations particularly when the clearance certificate sought to be relied upon by the petitioner is alleged to be a forged and fabricated document. In the circumstances, it is always open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy before the proper forum for redressal of his grievance against the 2nd respondent, but no Mandamus can be issued compelling the 1st respondent to act upon the alleged fabricated documents. Absolutely, no case is made out to hold that the 1st respondent has failed to discharge any statutory obligation. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ 13th September, 2005. gbs THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.14784 OF 2005 Dated : 13th September, 2005