IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35540 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DR.C.A.THAMBI,S/O.C.A.ABRAHAM,MANAGING PARTNER, MAYILVAHANAM,SHORNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD 678 001. 2. SURESH, S/O.RAJAN,KUNNATH HOUSE, MANDEKKAD,EDATHARA,PALAKKAD,PIN 678 611. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 35540 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is the registered owner of two stage carriages bearing registration Nos.KL-09/L-7989 and KL-18/8686 filed this writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to implement Exts.P1 and P2 decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad. Earlier, the petitioner, in furtherance of his intension to transfer the permit of the aforesaid stage carriages to one Mr. B. Palaniswamy submitted an application. In fact, it is a joint application submitted by the petitioner and the said Palaniswamy for transfer of permit. After considering the said joint application, it was allowed as per Exts. P1 and P2. Ext.P1 pertains to the vehicle bearing registration No. KL- 18/8686 and Ext.P2 pertains to the other stage carriage vehicle. 2. Evidently, as per Exts.P1 and P2 the transfer of permits was granted subject to clearance of Government dues and production of No Objection Certificate from the financier, WPC.No.35540/2010 : 2 : if applicable. Exts.P1 and P2 are dated 6.7.2010. Subsequently, the second respondent instituted OS No.618/2010 before the Sub Court Palakkad on 6.9.2010. Ext.P4 is the order of injunction passed by the Sub Court, Palakkad. In I.A No.2891/2010 in O.S No.618/2010. Ext.P3 would show that the petitioner herein is the first defendant therein. As per Ext.P4 injunction order the RTO, Palakkad was restrained from effecting transfer of ownership of the stage carriages bearing registration Nos. KL-09/L-7989 and KL-18/8686 pending proceedings until further orders from the Court. Evidently, in the said O.S the petitioner has filed counter statement. It is after filing counter statement before the Sub Court, Palakkad in I.A No.2891/2010 in O.S.No.618/2010 that the petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly seeking for implementation of Exts.P1 and P2 decisions taken by the RTA and also to declare that Ext.P4 injunction order passed by the Sub Court, Palakkad is not binding on first respondent in view of the provisions under section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A perusal of Ext.P5, the statement filed by the petitioner herein/ the first defendant WPC.No.35540/2010 : 3 : therein, would reveal that the petitioner has not taken any ground based on section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The provisions under section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any question relating to the grant of a permit under the said Act. According to the petitioner, in the light of section 94, Ext.P4 order of injunction is non-est. A perusal of Ext.P4 would reveal that as per the same, the second respondent therein was restrained from effecting transfer of ownership of the aforesaid vehicles. The contention of the petitioner is that since the transfer of permit has been granted as per Exts.P1 and P2 no separate orders are required for transfer of ownership. Be that as it may, those are matters which are to be raised before the Sub Court, Palakkad in O.S.No.618/2010. In view of the fact that the petitioner is the first defendant therein and he has already filed a counter statement therein, in the light of Ext.P4 the petitioner has to take appropriate steps in O.S.No.618/2010 either to vacate the order in Ext.P4 or to get it modified. Therefore, without making any observation as to the WPC.No.35540/2010 : 4 : merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition it is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to move for vacating or modifying Ext.P4 before the Sub Court, Palakkad. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge