IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34987 of 2007(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- ANEESH P. AJAYAN, S/O.P.T.AJAYAKUMAR, BHEEM JYOTHI HOUSE, ELAVUMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE MANAGER, MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD., IST FLOOR, KAIRALI AUTOMOBILES, NORTH OF M.S.M.COLLEGE, N.H.KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.34987/2007 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF PERMIT GRANTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 13/03/07. EXT.P2: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FOR RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE BUS OPERATORS ORGANISATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. TO THE POLICE. EXT.P4: COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 17/10/07. EXT.P6: COPY OF REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 34987 OF 2007 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P5 is a notice issued by the 1st respondent on receipt of an application from the 3rd respondent for transfer of registration in his favour and for issuing duplicate certificate in terms of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act. On receipt of Ext. P5, the petitioner has also filed Ext. P6 reply asserting his ownership over the vehicle in question. It is thereafter that challenging Ext. P5 this writ petition has been filed. He also complains that even before orders are passed by the 1st respondent on Exts. P5 and P6, the 1st respondent is proceeding to transfer the registration of the vehicle. 2. On the other hand the 3rd respondent submits that being the financier of the vehicle it was justified in making an application to the 1st respondent. Even apart from the controversies that are now raised by the petitioner as also the 3rd respondent I do not see any justification in the prayer of the petitioner to quash Exts. P5. W.P.(C) No. 34987 OF 2007 -2- Ext. P5 is only a notice which the 1st respondent has issued on receipt of an application for transfer and a duplicate certificate. Therefore, no illegality can be attached to Ext. P5 and hence the prayer for quashing Ext. P5 is declined. 3. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle I direct that before any final decision is taken on the application pursuant to Ext. P5 the 1st respondent shall hear the petitioner also in the matter. 4. As regards the apprehension of the petitioner that the vehicle will be sold before final orders are passed it is now undertaken by counsel for the 3rd respondent that until the vehicle is transferred in the 3rd respondent's name, it will not be disposed of and I record this undertaking. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-