IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 3418 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- FAISAL.V.A,VELLAKKOTTE PUTHENPURAYIL, ADOOPARAMBU, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.P.P.BIJU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY), JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD., ARAFA COMPLEX, CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, (EARLIER KNOWN AS TATA MOTORS LTD.,MUMBAI). 3. K.T.C.COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, WEST HILL, CALICUT, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MUHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3418/2010-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE VEHICLE SALES INVOICE DTD. 04/04/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 08/10/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.23993/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 04/02/2009 IN W.P.(C). NO.34007/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DUPLICATE OF FORM 21 ISSUED BY THE R.3. WITH MISTAKEN CHASIS NUMBER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE SAID REQUEST DTD. 09/11/2009. EXT.P.6: COPY OF A COMMUNICATION DTD. 11/06/2009 ISSUED FROM THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CALICUT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 3418 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to register the vehicle covered by Ext.P1. 2. Second respondent was the financier of a mini lorry that was purchased by one Abdul Rehman. The purchaser defaulted repayment of the amount. Therefore, the second respondent repossessed the vehicle in the year 2006. The original purchaser has not taken even a permanent registration in respect of the vehicle. The petitioner purchased the vehicle in auction from the second respondent financier. The originals of the statutory documents like Form 21 are not available with either the petitioner or the financier. The financier had earlier approached this Court by filing a W.P.(C) No. 34007 of 2008. As per Ext.P3 judgment this Court directed the Regional Transport Officer, Calicut to examine the claim of the petitioner on the petitioner producing duplicate copies W.P.(C) No. 3418/2010 2 of the records and, in which case, if the documents are found to be genuine, to register the vehicle of the petitioner, on the petitioner complying with all the other conditions specified in that behalf. Pursuant to Ext.P3, the Regional Transport Officer, Calicut considered the matter on the basis of Ext.P4 , Form 21. Thereupon it was found that the chassis number of the vehicle was different from the one shown in Ext.P4. Therefore, the said authority refused to register the vehicle. 3. The second respondent then submitted Ext.P5 request to the third respondent to issue a corrected Form No.21 for registration of the vehicle. The complaint is that no action has been taken on Ext.P5 so far. The petitioner, therefore, seeks an appropriate direction to the third respondent to issue a corrected Form No.21. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. According to him, the relief sought for in the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that third respondent is a private establishment. The contentions of the petitioner are opposed by the first respondent. It is pointed out W.P.(C) No. 3418/2010 3 that the petitioner’s vehicle cannot be registered, unless there is compliance with the mandatory requirements of law. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. The vehicle covered by Ext.P1 does not have any of its original records, including form 21. Though the vehicle was purchased in the year 2006, it has not been registered till date. It is not clear under what circumstances the vehicle was not registered by the original purchaser. On examination of the vehicle, with reference to the document Ext.P4, it is found that the chassis number of the vehicle is different from what is shown in Ext.P4. In the circumstances, the claim gives rise to a lot of suspicion. The vehicle which was sought to be registered before the Regional Transport Officer, Calicut is sought to be registered before the first respondent now. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the difference in the chassis number in Ext.P4 has been caused only by a typographic mistake, when taken together with the other circumstances of the case, I find that a lot of questions are left answered. Neither the transferor W.P.(C) No. 3418/2010 4 nor the original owner is in a position to explain the discrepancies. 7. Therefore, it is necessary that an enquiry is conducted by the first respondent to ascertain the real reason and the circumstances under which the variation in the chassis number of the vehicle shown in Ext.P4 has occurred. 8. Hence, the first respondent is directed to enquire into the above aspect with notice to the petitioner, the original owner/transferor as well as the third respondent and any other interested person, and to ascertain the circumstances under which the discrepancy has occurred. If the first respondent finds that the discrepancy is only the result of a typographic mistake, then the first respondent shall take necessary action to rectify the same. Otherwise, appropriate action shall be initiated against the culprits in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mn.