THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 3560 of 2010 Dated: 25.02.2010 Between: Gogula Srinivas … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Dy. Transport Commissioner and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 3560 of 2010 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TT 5765 having purchased the same on 16.08.2008 from the 3rd respondent. It is stated that as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the possession of the vehicle was delivered to the petitioner on 16.08.2008 on payment of Rs.1,65,000/- with an understanding that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.5,72,400/- would be paid by the petitioner to Shriram City Union Finance Limited to which the lorry was hypothecated in 27 equal monthly instalments. It is stated that the petitioner has paid the entire balance to Shriram City Union Finance Limited and a clearance certificate was also issued on 03.02.2010. The original documents relating to the vehicle including RC book were also handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to the 3rd respondent to get the registration certificate of the vehicle transferred in his name. Since the 3rd respondent did not evince any interest, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda seeking a decree for specific performance. The petitioner also filed a private complaint against the 3rd respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hujurnagar for the offences punishable under Section 420 and 504 IPC. In the meanwhile, since the fitness of the vehicle in question had expired on 14.01.2010, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 and 2 requesting to issue certificate of fitness. However, he was informed by the Office of the 1st respondent that the 3rd respondent filed an objection not to transfer the registration in respect of the lorry in question stating that the vehicle was stolen by somebody. In the circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 did not entertain the petitioner’s request for issuance of certificate of fitness. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not issuing the certificate of fitness is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded that in the absence of the fitness certificate, the petitioner was unable to ply the vehicle from 14.01.2010 and has been sustaining loss of Rs.3,000/- per day. Learned Government Pleader for Transport under instructions stated that the registration of the vehicle in question stands in favour of 3rd respondent-Smt. Ch.Chandrakala and it was hypothecated in favour of Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Himayatnagar. That apart, by order dated 24.04.2009, in I.A.No.290 of 2009 in O.S.No.81 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, the Regional Transport Authority was restrained from transferring the said property in favour of 3rd party. The said suit was filed by one Jakki Saidulu. The said Saidulu also filed a representation dated 05.01.2010 in the Office of the 1st respondent stating that the 3rd respondent had committed default in payment of Rs.2,00,000/- which was taken by her for purchasing the vehicle in question. In the above circumstances, learned Government Pleader states that the petitioner’s request for fitness certificate could not be considered. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) provides for Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. As per Section 56, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of plying in any public place unless it carries a certificate of fitness issued by the prescribed authority or by an authorised testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all requirements of the Acts and the Rules made thereunder. The proviso further states that where the prescribed authority or authorised testing station refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal. In the instant case, admittedly, the fitness certificate was initially issued on 15.01.2009 by the Motor Vehicle Inspector RTA, Krishna, Vijayawada, which was valid up to 14.01.2010, certifying that the provisions of chapter VII of the Act and the Rules made thereunder were complied with. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that as on today, valid registration stands in the name of the 3rd respondent and that the vehicle complies with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the light of the statutory provisions, I do not find any justification in the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not processing the petitioner’s application for grant of fitness certificate in respect of the vehicle in question. As noticed above, even in the case of refusal to issue such certificate, the authority is bound to supply the reasons in writing for such refusal. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to receive and process the application of the petitioner for issuance of the fitness certificate in respect of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TT 5765. In case, the respondents 1 and 2 are of the opinion that such certificate cannot be granted, the reasons shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 25.02.2010 Note: Issue wire at party’s cost. KLP