IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 163 of 2010(U) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.SHIHAB, S/O.LATE KUNJAHAMMED, AGED 24 YEARS, KURIKALAKATH HOUSE, AKALAD P.O. 680 518, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR. 2. B.R.D.SECURITIES LIMITED, BETHANY COMPLEX, THRISSUR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.163/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY R1 DT 2-11-09. P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 19-12-09 ISSUED BY R1. P5 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED DT 21-9-09. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 163 of 2010 U ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 which is a notice issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to appear before the said authority for a personal hearing within seven days of the date of receipt of the said communication failing which an ex-parte decision would be taken. He has also been directed to bring the court direction, if any, against issuance of a fresh Registration Certificate in the name of the financier. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since he has been directed by Ext.P5 to bring the court direction, if any, against issuance of fresh registration certificate in the name of the financier, it is clear that the authority has already taken a decision to grant a fresh Registration Certificate to the financier. 3. The counsel for the second respondent opposes the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner pointing out that WPC.163/2010 : 2 : Ext.P4 is only a notice directing the petitioner to attend a hearing and that the same does not contain any decision on the issues that are involved. Therefore, it is submitted that there are no grounds to set aside Ext.P4. 4. I have heard Smt.Babitha P.G., counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Santhosh Poduval for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 5. A reading of Ext.P4 clearly shows that the same is only a communication issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to attend a personal hearing, within a period of seven days of receipt thereof. True, the said communication contains a statement directing him to bring the court decision, if any, against the issuance of a fresh Registration Certificate in the name of the financier. The said statement does not contain any decision to grant a fresh Registration Certificate to the second respondent, as alleged. Since Ext.P4 is only a communication, directing the petitioner to attend a personal hearing, I do not think that the same requires to be interfered with at this stage. It is assured that the first respondent would conduct a personal hearing as proposed in WPC.163/2010 : 3 : Ext.P4 and complete the proceedings without any delay. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to complete the personal hearing that is contemplated in Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks