IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 33282 of 2001(K) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ A.K. MUHAMMED SINAN, S/O. AHAMMED HAJI, MANGAD, KALLIASSERI POST, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KANNUR. 2. SAKTHI AUTOMOBILES, CELLICHERRY ROAD, KANNUR-2. 3. THE TATA FINANCE LTD., KANNUR, OPPOSITE RAMANADA OIL MILLS, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-2. R3 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R2 SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N.SUDHADEVI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 54362/2001 IN OP NO. 33282/2001. DISMISSED 27/03/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE CHART OF REMITTANCE DT. 3/07/00. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE TOWING PERMISSION ORDER NO. C.13/14658/00 DT. 28/6/00. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R1 DT. 1/6/2001. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE REPLY MADE BY THE PETITIONER DT. 16/7/2001. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE PERSONAL HEARING ISSUED BY THE R1 DT. 25/08/2001. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE REPLY MADE BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(1). COPY OF THE INVOICE CUM CHALLAN ISSUED ON 31/3/98. EXT.R2(2). COPY OF THE VEHICLE PURCHASE APPLICATION DT. 24/6/98. EXT.R2(3). COPY OF THE DELIVERY RECEIPT DT. 24/6/98 ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(1). COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS PERTAINING TO THE HIRE PURCHASE TRANSACTION. EXT.R3(2). COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 22/10/99 TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS GUARANTORS. EXT.R3(3). COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 11/07/2001. EXT.R3(4). COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER ENCLOSING THE NOTICE. True copy tga T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= O.P.No.33282 of 2001-K. ======================= Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.KL 13/D-7373 from the 2nd respondent who is a dealer of Tata Locomotive, Mumbai and which was financed by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was delivered to the petitioner stating that the vehicle is a 1998 model. In view of the continuous mechanical problem the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and then only it was revealed that the vehicle was a 1986 model one instead of 1998 model. The petitioner's case is that he produced the vehicle before the 2nd respondent to get it replaced by a new vehicle. Subsequently he received Ext.P3 notice issued by the registering authority directing him to surrender the registration certificate for which the petitioner made Ext.P4 reply. Again the first respondent issued Ext.P5 notice directing him to O.P.No.33282 of 2001-K. -: 2 :- appear for a hearing. He submitted Ext.P6 objection in the matter. Apprehending that there is a collusion he has approached this Court. 2. The main relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent not to issue the fresh registration certificate to the financier. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent it is stated that the petitioner was a defaulter as he has paid only a sum of Rs.1,82,063/- which represents only 8 instalments. The total hire money thus payable was Rs.7,94,751/- which is repayable in 35 monthly instalments. It is admitted in the counter affidavit in para.5 that the vehicle was garaged at M/s.Sakthi Automobiles, Thottada and on the strength of the hire purchase agreement the 3rd respondent repossessed the vehicle and kept the vehicle there. According to the 3rd respondent, the repossession is recognised by law. It is further averred that since the demand was not met with, the 3rd respondent applied for fresh registration certificate. 4. It is upto the 2nd respondent to take a decision as to O.P.No.33282 of 2001-K. -: 3 :- whether the request for a fresh registration certificate has to be granted or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only if Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act is satisfied then alone the request can be granted. Therefore the first respondent will have to address the issue in the light of the statutory provisions especially Sec.51(5) of the Act. The first respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry in the matter for the purpose of taking steps as requested for by the 3rd respondent and appropriate decision shall be taken in accordance with law after hearing the respective parties. Needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-