IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30579 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., 123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI, REP. BY P/A HOLDER SRI.VENUGOPALAN.P.T., LEGAL CONSULTANT M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD, SREEPADAM BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGISTERING AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. 2. ASHRAF N.K., S/O UMMER, NAMBAN KUNNATH HOUSE, POST IRINGALLOOR, TIRUR BY GP SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).30579/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of extending financial facilities for purchase of vehicles. A facility was extended in this behalf to the second respondent for purchase of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10-P/2196. Petitioner submits that due to default committed by the second respondent, vehicle was re-possessed and the petitioner approached the first respondent for transfer of registration under Section 51 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. Second respondent had in fact approached this Court apprehending that his objections may not be considered by the Registering Authority. This Court by Ext.P4 judgment directed the Registering Authority to necessarily consider the objections of the second respondent also, before passing orders on the application for transfer of registration submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner is aware of this and is aggrieved by the fact that according to him, there is W.P.(C).30579/2008 2 delay in orders being passed on the application for transfer of registration submitted by him. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the second respondent and learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that he has paid the amount due to the petitioner. Therefore, there cannot be a transfer of registration. If any further amounts are due, that shall also be paid. 4. In my view, these are matters which have to be resolved by the petitioner and the second respondent. 5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent, Registering Authority, to finalize the proceedings resultant upon the application made by the petitioner for transfer of registration in his favour, as evidenced by Ext.P3, after hearing the second W.P.(C).30579/2008 3 respondent also, without further delay, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs