IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 29660 of 2008(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M.K.VASAVAN, S/O.SANKARA GUPTAN, KIZHAKKAMPURATH HOUSE, THRIPPALAMUNDA, PARASSERY P.O., KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS : --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGISTERING AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE LTD., SRIVALSAM BUILDING, NADAKKAVU EAST, KOZHIKODE. 3. N.M.RAFEEQ, S/O.T.M.MAKAR, KEECHERIYIL HOUSE, MARKET P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.SAIDALAVI, VATTAKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KALLADIKODE, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ - R3 SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE - R2 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE - R2 SRI. M.R. SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29660 /2008 APPEDNIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SURRENDER CERTIFICATE DATED 2/11/2005. EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/03/2006. EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 51(5) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DATED 28/08/2006. EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 51(5) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DATED 9/09/2006. EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT APPOINTIGN A RD. DISTRICT JUDGE AS ARBITRATOR DATED 14/12/2006. EXHIBIT P6 : A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR ON 3/01/2007. EXHIBI TP7: A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR ON 9/02/2007. EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR DATED 14/03/2007. EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) No. 30992/2006(M) DATED 2/02/2007. EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF the ORDER PASSED B Y THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 15/03/2007. EXHIBIT P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/11/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/2/2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.35036/2007. EXHIBIT P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST R.T.O ON 15/09/2008. EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2008 IN O.P. (ARB.) 98/2006. EXHIBIT R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE MUVATTUPUZHA REGIOINAL TRANSPORT OFFICE DATED 19/09/2008. EXHIBIT R2: TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/09/2008 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.33/2008 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29660 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is Exhibit P13. Exhibit P13 is an order passed by the first respondent granting fresh registration to the financier in respect of the vehicle mentioned therein. 2. The petitioner was the registered owner of the said vehicle, for the purchase of which, he executed a hire purchase agreement with the second respondent. Admittedly the vehicle was surrendered and thereafter, on an application made the second respondent was granted fresh registration by Exhibit P9 order. That was challenged by the Petitioner before this court and by Exhibit P12 judgment, case was disposed of. On the basis that the first respondent had passed Exhibit P9 order without hearing the petitioner. Accordingly in Exhibit P12 judgment, the impugned proceedings were quashed and the first respondent was directed to reconsider the matter with notice to all. 3. Accordingly, the matter was heard and Exhibit P13 order was passed granting fresh registration in favour of the financier. In the W.P.(C) No. 29660 /2008 2 meanwhile, the vehicle was sold to the 3rd respondent and as is seen from Exhibit R3(a), clearance certificate also has been issued by the first respondent. 4. In the meanwhile, the financier has raised arbitration proceedings against the petitioner for realising the amount due to them. In the arbitration proceedings the petitioner has raised counter claim for return of the vehicle itself on discharging the liability due. It is stated that in view of the pendency of the arbitration proceedings in counter claim, Exhibit P13 proceedings passed by the first respondent granting fresh registration exercising his powers under Section 51(5) is illegal. According to the petitioner power under Section 51(5) can be exercised only in a situation, when there is no dispute between the financier and the hirer. It is also contended that if the vehicle is registered in the name of the 3rd respondent, the present purchaser, his counter claim will become infructuous. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and respondent. Admittedly the vehicle was surrendered and has been sold, the only question is whether the 3rd respondent is entitled to have the vehicle W.P.(C) No. 29660 /2008 3 registered in his favour, on account of the pendency of the arbitration proceedings and the counter claim. 6. In my view, rights of the petitioner stands concluded by Exhibit R2 judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court, by which Exhibit P14 order has been passed by the District Court, in Arbitration Application No. 33/2008 was confirmed. 7. In that judgment the Division bench held that even if the petitioner succeeds in the Arbitration proceedings, he can be compensated in monitory terms. If that be so necessarily the proceedings granting fresh registration to the financier and the right of the purchaser to have the vehicle registered in this name, have to be upheld. Therefore, in this writ petition, the petitioner cannot seek any relief. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm