IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35036 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.K.VASAVAN, S/O.SANKARA GUPTHAN, 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-688517. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R2 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SRI.C.K.SREEJITH FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.35036/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SURRENDER CERTIFICATE DT.2.11.2005. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.14.3.2006. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF the NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 51(5) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF the REPLY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 51(5) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF TE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT APPOINTING A RD.DISTRICT JUDGE AS ARBITRATOR DT.14.2.2006. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR ON 3.1.2007. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.30992/06(M). EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 15/3/2007. EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.7.11.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 35036 OF 2007 U ==================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P11. 2. The controversy appears to be regarding the claim of the 3rd respondent for issuing a fresh Registration Certificate. By Ext.P9 judgment, this court had directed the 1st respondent to consider the application made by the 2nd respondent with notice to all affected parties including the petitioner. It is stated that pursuant to the said judgment, parties were heard and the request was declined by Ext.P10 in view of the pendency of the matter before the District Court, Palakkad. 3. Petitioner complains that while matters stood thus, there was a change in the office of the 1st respondent and that the new officer passed Ext.P11 order contrary to Ext.P10 and that too without notice to the petitioner. The parties are in agreement that Ext.P11 was passed without notice to the petitioner and for WPC 35036/07 :2 : that reason, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P11. Therefore, quashing Ext.P11, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall issue notice to the parties including the petitioner, reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp