IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23218 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ C.K.SUNIL, ANITHA BHAVAN, CHELERI POST, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA. 3. THE ING VYSYA BANK LTD, RETAIL BANKING DIVISION, SHEMA BUILDING, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.VIVEK BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23218/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DT. 5.2.2006. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE OF REVENUE RECOVERY DT. 18.9.07. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT DT. 27.9.07. EXT.P4:- COPIES OF RECIEPTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF MONTHLY INSTALMENTS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 23218 OF 2008 L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought in this writ petition are for directing the 2nd respondent to accept the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of certificate of fitness of the petitioner's stage carriage bearing registration No. KL13 M-819 without insisting on the R.C. book of the vehicle. There is a further prayer to direct the 3rd respondent to produce the R.C. book in respect of the vehicle referred to above before the 2nd respondent for making necessary endorsement. 2. Though the petitioner is also seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider his application for the issue of a duplicate R.C. book, that prayer is not pressed before me. 3. The stage carriage referred to above, of which the petitioner is the registered owner, has been purchased by him availing of finance from the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the vehicle was operating on a permit, granted by the 1st respondent, on the route W.P.(C) No. 23218 OF 2008 -2- Kasaragod-Kozhikode as LSOS. While so, following a fire accident occurred on 4.2.2006 extensive damage was caused to the vehicle and the petitioner refers to Ext. P1 newspaper report, to substantiate this statement. 4. It is stated that as a result of the damage suffered, the vehicle could not be operated and as a consequence thereof, he could not pay the instalment dues of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submits that for availing of the compensation due from the Insurance Company, petitioner had handed over the R.C. book to the 3rd respondent and on its realisation, the 3rd respondent refused to return the R.C. book on the ground that still amount was remaining outstanding to it. It is stated that subsequently at the instance of the 3rd respondent, by Ext. P2, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and that thereupon the petitioner moved the Government and obtained an instalment facility as per Ext. P3. Counsel for the petitioner asserts before me that the instalment in terms of Ext. P3 Govt. Order, is being paid by him without default. 5. In the meanwhile, the period of the certificate of fitness expired and the petitioner was unsuccessful in persuading the 2nd W.P.(C) No. 23218 OF 2008 -3- respondent to accept his application for renewal of the certificate of fitness. According to the petitioner, the refusal of the 2nd respondent to accept the application was for the reason that the application was not accompanied by the R.C. book concerning the vehicle. Petitioner contends that it is impossible for him to produce the R.C. book as the same is in the custody of the 3rd respondent, who according to him, has refused to return the same after realising the compensation from the Insurance Company. 6. Learned Govt. Pleader, on instruction, submits that the petitioner did not make any application for renewal of the certificate of fitness and that the averment that the 2nd respondent refused to accept the application is incorrect. It is also stated that even if an application is made, unless the authority is in a position to verify the correctness of the particulars of the vehicle with reference to the entries in the R.C. book, it will not be possible for the 2nd respondent to process an application. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contends, referring to Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 105 of the KMV Rules, that production of R.C. book is not a statutory requirement. True, the W.P.(C) No. 23218 OF 2008 -4- rule does not in specific terms provide for production of the R.C. book, but then, on perusal of the section and Form CFRA, providing for the application for renewal of certificate of fitness, shows that the particulars of the vehicle are to be incorporated in the application. If these particulars are to be verified by the 2nd respondent, necessarily production of the R.C. book is essential. If that be so, even though Act or Rule does not specifically provide that the R.C. book should be produced, there is nothing erroneous in the stand taken by the 2nd respondent that production of R.C. book is essential for verifying the particulars declared by the petitioner in the application form prescribed. 8. As already noticed, the difficulty expressed by the petitioner in producing the R.C. book is the refusal of the 3rd respondent financier in making available the R.C. book. According to the petitioner, this refusal is on the ground that the petitioner still owes money to them. It is also his case that in terms of Ext. P3 Govt. Order he has been making payment without any default. 9. If as stated by the petitioner, in terms of Ext. P3 Govt. Order, he is making payment without any default, I see no W.P.(C) No. 23218 OF 2008 -5- justification for the 3rd respondent's refusal in making available the R.C. book in order to enable the petitioner to get the certificate of fitness renewed and on that basis revive operation on the strength of the permit which is stated to be still valid. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1) That it will be open to the petitioner to make his application for renewal of the certificate of fitness to the 2nd respondent, in which case, the 2nd respondent shall accept the same and consider the request of the petitioner for renewal of the certificate of fitness. 2) It is directed that it will be open to the 2nd respondent to require the 3rd respondent to produce the R.C. book before him for verification of the particulars declared by the petitioner in the application form and for making endorsements on that basis. 3) On receipt of the intimation as above, the 3rd respondent shall, if the petitioner has been making payment in terms of Ext. P3 Govt. Order without default, produce the R.C. book concerning the vehicle, before the 2nd respondent in order to enable him to verify the particulars and process the application of the petitioner for certificate of fitness as required under Section 56 of the Act read W.P.(C) No. 23218 OF 2008 -6- with Rule 105 of the KMV Rules. It is clarified that this Court does not intend that the 3rd respondent should return the R.C. book to the petitioner, but only need to produce the same for the above purposes and once the verification is completed the R.C. book will be returned to it. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd and 3rd respondents for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-