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. 22647 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MR.K.Y.SADIK MOHAMMED S/O.BAVA YOUSAF, M/S.KYS MOTORS, KADATHY MARKET P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MALLAPPALLY. 2. ICICI BANK LTD, 2ND FLOOR, SKYLINE CITADEL, KANJIKUZHY,KOTTAYAM REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE FOCUS MOTORS FOCUZ TOWERS, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 4. TATA MOTORS LTD 3RD FLOOR, TATUS TOWERS, N.H.BYE PASS ROAD PADIVATTOM, COCHIN 682 024,REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 5. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM 6. EAPEN V.K., VEDIKATTIL HOUSE THALLIYOOR P.O., VENNIKULAM, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22647/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the claim of the petitioner for registration of a TATA vehicle with model No.407/NR, Chassis No.357251KTZ829337 and Engine No.497SPTC36KTZ906759. 2. Petitioner submits that the vehicle which was originally purchased by a 3rd party under finance from the second respondent was later repossessed by the 2nd respondent and that in the auction that was held he had purchased it from the 2nd respondent. It would appear that a request made for registration was rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P2, which happened much before the petitioner had purchased the vehicle. According to the petitioner subsequently, by Ext.P4, the registering authority WP(C).No.22647/2008 2 itself has sought clarification from the Transport Commissioner and that he is still awaiting clarification sought for by him. It is stated that if once clarification is given favourable to him, the vehicle would be liable to be registered, contrary to the stand taken by the registering authority in Ext.P2 order. 3. If as stated by the petitioner the registering authority is awaiting for the clarification sought for by him as per Ext.P4 from the 5th respondent, it is necessary that the 5th respondent furnishes clarification as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, I direct that the 5th respondent shall consider Ext.P4 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is directed that if the clarification confirms eligibility of the vehicle in question for registration, it will be open to the petitioner to seek registration from the registering authority concerned. WP(C).No.22647/2008 3 Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the 5th respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(C).No.22647/2008 4