IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33911 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.R.VENUGOPAL, S/O.O.K.RAMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, ODASSERY HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERAI. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, NORTH PARUR. 2. M/S L & T FINANCE LIMITED, ANJUMANA BYE-PASS ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-682024. ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.K.RAJESH (AROOR) FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 33911/09. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUONTS. EXT.P2 NOTICE DT. 15-10-2009. EXT.P3 OBJECTION DT. 21-10-2009. EXT.P4 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 31166/09. EXT.P5 NOTICE DT. 31-10-2009. EXT.P6 APPLICATION DT. 9-11-2009. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 12-11-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 33911 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He purchased the stage carriage by availing finance from the 2nd respondent under a hire purchase agreement. The petitioner committed default in payment of the purchase price. The 2nd respondent seized the vehicle and applied to the 1st respondent for issue of a fresh registration certificate. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 51 and issued notice to the petitioner. Apprehending that before considering the objections of the petitioner, the 1st respondent would pass orders under Section 51, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext. P4 judgment for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner before directing surrender of the registration certificate. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P7 order was passed, which is under challenge before me. 2. The petitioner's contention is that before passing orders under Section 51, the 1st respondent ought to have satisfied himself that the 2nd respondent had made a demand on the petitioner for surrender of the registration certificate and the petitioner must have refused to surrender the same. In this case, according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent never issued any notice to the petitioner for surrender of the registration certificate. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext. P7 is bad since the conditions for a valid exercise of powers under Section 51 have not been satisfied. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that there was default in repayment of the hire purchase price to the 2nd respondent . He also does not dispute the fact that the vehicle has been seized by the 2nd respondent. I do not find much merit in his contention that the W.P.C. No. 33911/09 -: 2 :- 1st respondent ought to have satisfied himself that the 2nd respondent has issued any notice to the petitioner for surrender of the registration certificate. What Section 51(5) contemplates is the satisfaction of the 1st respondent that the registered owner refuses to deliver the certificate of registration. The mere fact that the petitioner has approached this Court itself shows that he refused to surrender the registration certificate. Therefore, the whose attempt of the petitioner is a futile exercise, which can only delay but cannot prevent the process of enforcing surrender of the registration certificate and issue of fresh certificate of registration to the 2nd respondent. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/