IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2565 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 21332/2007 DT.5.10.07 APPELLANT(S): WRIT PETITIONER ----------------------------- PRINCE P RAJ,S/O.PRABHULACHANDRA RAJ AGED27 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHASURA VILASOM, KATTUPUTHUSSERY,NAVAIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (REGISTERING AUTHORITY) ATTINGAL. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2565 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant claims possession and ownership over a stage carriage, bearing No. KL 16/810. The registered owner of the vehicle was Anish V. Kumar, K.R. Gardens, Kattuputhussery, Navaikulam. According to the appellant/petitioner, he got the vehicle under a sale agreement dated 9.11.2004. But, the formalities for transfer of the registration certificate in his favour were not completed. For that, the permit-less certificate for the vehicle from the second respondent was necessary. The reason was that, though the vehicle was registered by the first respondent, the vehicle was being plied within the jurisdiction of the second respondent. By the time motion was made, the registered owner committed suicide on 21.3.2007. But, the petitioner pursued the application for permit-less certificate thereafter. The said application was rejected by Ext.P9, holding W.A.No. 2565 of 2007 2 that the petitioner has not complied with the formalities under Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (for short 'the Rules”). The said Rules covers transfer of the registration in favour of the legal heirs. 2. The appellant submits that non-compliance with the formalities under Rule 56 of the Rules is a matter within the jurisdiction of the first respondent, when motion for transfer of the registration is made. The appellant wanted only a communication from the second respondent to the first respondent to the effect that the vehicle is not covered by any permit. Therefore, Ext.P9 is unsustainable. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, upholding the contentions of the respondents. Therefore, this writ appeal is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The second respondent has filed a statement, opposing the prayers sought in the appeal. 5. What is claimed from the second respondent is only a certificate to show that the aforementioned vehicle is not covered by W.A.No. 2565 of 2007 3 any permit. Since the appellant is in possession of materials to show that he has purchased the vehicle, we feel that he has the locus standi to claim that certificate from the second respondent. Therefore, the stand taken in Ext.P9 cannot be supported. Non-compliance with Rule 56 of the Rules is a matter to be looked into by the first respondent, while the claim for transfer of registration certificate is considered. Accordingly, without prejudice to the powers of the first respondent in this regard, the second respondent is directed to issue permit-less certificate to the appellant, within one week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before him. 6. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm