IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25613 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- N.K.ASHRAF, S/O.UMMER, NAMBAN KUNNATH HOUSE, IRINGALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, YAHOOB PARAPPAN, S/O.KAMMUKKUTTY PARAPPAN HOUSE, KUTTALOOR, OORAKAM KIZHMURI POST, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 2. M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, KOOTHRAT TOWERS, COURT ROAD, MANJERI-676 121, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25613 OF 2008 Y ==================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage KL 10 P 2196. According to the petitioner, the financier has already made an application to the 1st respondent for fresh Registration Certificate in respect of the vehicle in question and on receipt thereof, he has been issued Ext.P1. Thereupon, he has filed Ext.P2 objection to the request of the financier. 2. Writ petition is filed mainly on the apprehension that the 1st respondent may pass orders on the application made by the financier without taking note of Ext.P2 objection filed by him. If the petitioner has filed an objection as claimed by him and that too in response to Ext.P1, I see no reason why the same shall not be considered. 3. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing that if orders have not been passed so far, the 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P2, provided the same has been received and is pending. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp