IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 17488 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- USHA NANDINI, W/O.MOHAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, ATHIPOTTA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. MR.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, 2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. MOHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,PARAKKAL HOUSE, ATHIPOTTA, PALAKKAD DIST. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17488 of 2009(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.07.08 ISSUED BY THE FINANCER. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FINANCER DATED 13.09.08. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.08 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.09 PASSED IN M.V.A.A. NO. 134/09 ON THE FILE OF STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 17488 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a vehicle belonging to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent filed a joint application for endorsing the transfer in the registration certificate. That application was rejected by Ext.P3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was also rejected by Ext.P4. The ground on which the same was rejected was that the 3rd respondent owes money to the State. According to the petitioner, the dues are not to the Government of Kerala, but to the Tamil Nadu Government and therefore such dues cannot be a ground for rejecting joint application for endorsement of the transfer by the respondents 1 and 2. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in which respondents 1 and 2 state that the 3rd respondent is a defaulter in respect of sales tax arrears due to the Government of Tamil Nadu to the tune of Rs.1,26,77,564/- and therefore the transfer of the vehicle to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent cannot be endorsed. W.P(C) No. 17488 of 2009 -2- 3. After hearing both sides, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of a person who is a party to an illegal sale of the vehicle by a person who owes crores of money to the Tamil Nadu Government. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs