IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32740 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BEENA ANIL, W/O. ANIL, KADAVIL HOUSE, KESAVALAYAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. SHRIRAM TRANPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 32740/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF LORRY NO.KL 07 M 5774. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.8561581 DATED 29.8.2008 EVIDENCING THE LAST PAYMENT OF THE LOAN AMOUNT AS STATED ABOVE. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 13.10.2008 ISSUED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND HER FATHER IN LAW. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 22.10.2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P3 LAWYER NOTICE. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT FOR RS.3,993/- DATED 4.11.2008 DRAWN BY PUNJAB NATIOAL BANK, CHERTHALA BRANCH. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT. R2(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6.11.2008 FILED BY MR.RAVINDRAN VIDHYAN. EXT. R2(b) : A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 14.11.2008. EXT. R2(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 10.11.2008 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.32740 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks a mandamus to the first respondent to accept motor vehicles tax from the petitioner in respect of vehicle No. KL 07 M 5774 without insisting for production of registration certificate. 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner stood as guarantor for a hire purchase facility availed by her father in law for the purchase of a lorry from the second respondent. Due to the old age of the father in law he handed over management of the lorry to the petitioner. The petitioner has been paying the instalments without default. In the meanwhile, under the guise of verification the second respondent had taken over the RC book of the vehicle and has been detaining it without returning it to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the second respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no right to take possession of the vehicle from the borrower without the consent of the second respondent. It is also stated that they deny the WPC.32740/2008. 2 allegation that the respondent took away the registration certificate and there is no occasion for taking the registration certificate from the petitioner, it is stated. It is specifically stated the original of the registration certificate is not with the second respondent but will be with the original owner Sri.Ravindran Vaidyar. It is no doubt stated that remittance of tax will be received even if unaccompanied by the RC book. It is stated that Ext.R2(a) complaint has been filed by Sri. Ravindran Vaidyar against the husband of the petitioner. Ext.R2(b) is produced as the copy of the statement of accounts showing that Sri.Ravindran Vaidyar was a defaulter and Ext.R2(c) produced is a lawyer notice showing that there is a default of Rs.76701/-. 4. Petitioner is not the registered owner. Her father in law Sri. Ravindran Vaidyar is the registered owner. There is no case of any sale in favour of the petitioner of the vehicle. There is no material at all to show that the petitioner is as such in possession of the vehicle and there is no material forthcoming of any authorisation by the father in law of the petitioner either to file this writ petition or saying that petitioner has been put in possession. Rule 4 insists for production of registration certificate for payment of tax. I do not think that this is a fit case where I should direct WPC.32740/2008. 3 the respondents to allow the petitioner to pay the tax without insisting for production of registration certificate. I decline jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb