IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12471 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.P.JOHNSON, S/O.PAPPACHAN, PUNNOLLIL HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 550. 2. POONOLIL RICE AND FOODS (P) LTD., INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.O.JOHNSON. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.A.V.TELLES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ALUVA. 3. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI. 4. H.D.F.C. BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, METHAR SQUARES, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. 5. K.Y.SADIK MOHAMMED, S/O.BAVA YOUSAF, KARIKANAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA. R3 BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO R5 BY SRI.C.K.SREEJITH R4 BY SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12471 of 2007 EXHIBITS ------------ PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------ P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.29.11.06 P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 12.2.07 P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS ON 6.3.07 P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R3-9503/07 DT. 17.3.07 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,J. ................................................................... WP(C) NO. 12471of 2007 ......................................... Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is the Managing Director of the second petitioner Company. The company had certain transactions with the third respondent, Civil Supplies Corporation. The company purchased 11 vehicles under hire purchase from the fourth respondent HDFC Bank Limited. Admittedly the company had bad times and certain vehicles other than those which the petitioners surrendered with HDFC for sale, were re-possessed by the HDFC. In the meanwhile, Civil Supplies Corporation raised claims against the petitioners. That led to certain recovery proceedings. HDFC obtained a direction for permitting to sell the vehicles and also that Civil Supplies Corporation may consider appropriation on the basis of the settled claims. HDFC, thereafter, applied for issuance of such registration. The auction purchaser, the fifth respondent, moved this Court and obtained directions for consideration WP(C) NO. 12471of 2007 2 of the application for issuance of fresh registration. Following the direction of this Court, the competent authority has found that on the basis of earlier judgment, the petitioners could not rake any claim in opposition to respondents 4 and 5 for issuance of fresh registration certificate. Under such circumstances, and having regard to the materials on record, I find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE. rkc