IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38207 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ABDUL JALEEL,S/O.SAFIYA, 718/ PANANTHOTTATHIL HOUSE,CHEEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGISTERING OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM,PIN 676 505. 2. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. T.K.TOWER,NILAMBUR ROAD,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 121. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 38207 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed financial assistance from the second respondent to purchase a lorry bearing registration No.KL-13N/1951. It appears the petitioner defaulted repayment of the loan. Thereupon, the financier repossessed the vehicle. The petitioner did not however handover the registration certificate to the financier. The financier thereupon requested the registering authority to cancel the certificate of registration issued in respect of the vehicle to the petitioner and to issue a fresh registration certificate in the name of the financier. The registering authority in turn issued Ext.P2 notice dated 4.12.2010 calling upon the petitioner to surrender the certificate of registration and to submit his representation if any to the registering authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Instead of replying to Ext.P2 notice or appearing before the registering authority, this writ petition was filed on 21.12.2010 challenging Ext.P2 and seeking the following WPC No.38207/2010 2 reliefs. “(i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P2 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions: (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the 1st respondent not to cancel the registration issued to the petitioner; (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to give an opportunity to pay the arrears and regularize the loan taken by the petitioner.” 2. In my opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived. If the petitioner had any objection to the request made by the second respondent to the registering authority, he ought to have raised it before that authority by filing his objections. Section 51 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 states that where the person whose name has been specified in the certificate of registration as the person with whom the registered owner has entered into a hire purchase/lease/hypothecation agreement, satisfies the registering authority that he has taken possession of the vehicle from the registered owner owing to default of the registered owner under the provisions of the said agreement and that the registered owner refuses to deliver the certificate of registration WPC No.38207/2010 3 or has absconded, such authority may, after giving the registered owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make and notwithstanding that the certificate of registration is not produced before it, cancel the certificate and issue a fresh certificate of registration in the name of the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the agreement. If the petitioner has any objection to the request made by the second respondent to the registering authority, he should have raised it before the registering authority by filing his objections. The challenge to Ext.P2 cannot therefore be entertained. The other relief sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to pay the arrears and reglarise the loan. The financier is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is not an instrumentality or agency of the Sate. Further, the petitioner has not produced any materials to show the terms on which he had availed the loan. In such circumstances, this Court cannot direct the second respondent to grant the petitioner an opportunity to pay the WPC No.38207/2010 4 defaulted amounts in instalments or to regularise the loan. If the petitioner is desirous of getting back possession of the vehicle, it is for him to approach the financier and if the financier is willing, to pay the entire amount and take back possession of the vehicle. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.38207/2010 5 WPC No.38207/2010 6