-;^%SPFEaEiT-.T3S^T- NGLE B£.iCH & ^7 1N THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( C ) No. L{ O^f 2-0f 2009 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: / / Paras Ram Sharma, aged about 55 years S/o Shri Sita Ram Sharma, R/o Maharana Pratap Bhawan, First house of the Last Lane, Shanker Nagar Durg (CG) Versus 1. The Registering Authority cum District Transport Officer, Korba, Rajgamar Road, Korba, DistrictKorba (CG). ^""^^>' ^•\^' ^" ^' ^- ..*•• / 2. The Branch Manager, M/s -^ Cholamandalam DBS, Finance Limited, Branch Bilaspur, Near Bus StanJBUaspur (CG). ,3. The Branch Manager, M/s Cholamandalam DBS, Finance Limited, Shri Complex Stadium Road, Transport Nagar, Korba, District Korba (CG). 4. The Branch Manager, M/s Cholamandalam DBS, Finance Limited, 3rd Floor, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 /2^70F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDTA •^^ /''€'"^i i A ^ft ^^^jT "^^ss^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.4072 OF 2009 PETITIONER Paras Ram Sharma. ^F^ t ' RESPONDENTS Versus The Registering Authority cum District Transport Officer, Korba & Others. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & Order on the /:+ day of October, 2010 Sdf- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^.K 1 l'|i •/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C) N0.4072 OF 2009 Paras Ram Sharma. RESPONDENTS Versus The Registering Authority cum District Transport Officer, Korba & Others. (Writ petitions underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 to 4. JUDGEMENT&ORDER (Delivered on this ^. day of October, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P/9) passed by the respondent No. 1, directing the petitioner to deposit vehicle registration book in the office of the respondent No.1, within a period of seven days. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased a 10 wheeler Truck, bearing registration No. C.G.12C'-3276, Model 2007, through respondent No.3, on Hire-Purchase agreement. The petitioner could not honour the agreement by not making regular payment. Thus, the Truck, according to the petitioner, was forcefully seized by the respondent no.3. The petitioner, thereafter made an offer to deposit a part of the amount and to release the vehicle to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 did not agree to the proposal and sold the said vehicle on auction. Thus this petition. ^ jl ..^^S^, .i"'^. •m:'m !$B?%ISI@IK%SBSS%IRIB3SgSJv 4V ' i Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 14.7.2009 is illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law. The respondent No.1 has failed to appreciate the material documents. The petitioner is always ready to deposit the rest of the installments but the respondent No.S-finance company, with an ulterior motive, did not agree to the offer. The authority below ought to have considered the adverse situation of the petitioner which led to non-payment of installments by the petitioner. On the other hand, without filing return to the writ petition, Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 would submit that the petition is not maintainable as an appeal is available under the provisions of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against any order passed by the respondent No.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner is impugning the order dated 14/16.07.2009 wherein the respondent No.1 has examined the facts in detail. The facts, as stated in the impugned order, are that on 01.06.2009, the respondent No. 2 to 4 made an application for registration of the vehicle in their names. The truck owner, i.e. the petitioner was issued a notice on 01.06.2009. On 08.06.2009, the petitioner filed an objection to transfer of the registration book in favour of the respondent-financial institution. On 16.06,2009, the petitioner as well as the representative of the finance company i.e. ^^y'm^ ww^ §8iti3SI%il8S81SS%iS^^^^S8S3S^^SISBftiIIIS^^ l|J^i|ll'i88BillSJII|J%iliiS^ ^ -, . - ,•' ,,.. ; :...';- /•i';.'^'i:i.ii:.'^^^^^^^ ^ 8. Cholamandalam appeared and it was informed that on 25.12.2008, the vehicle was taken into the custody by the finance company on account of non-payment of installments in terms of the hire- purchase-agreement. The petitioner in his statement submitted thatthe petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 26.12.2008, thereafter made application to pay remaining two installments and he was ready to pay the entire money, so that the vehicle could be released in his favour. The respondent No.1, after having considered all the facts, came to the conclusion that the owner of the truck (the petitioner) had failed to make payment regularly in its due time. Thus, the vehicle was seized by the respondent No. 2 to 4. The petitioner had further failed to deposit the due installments despite being granted sufficient time to him. Accordingly, he was directed to deposit registration book in the office of the respondent No.1. The contention of the petitioner that the vehicle was seized forcefully and unauthorisedly, is not the subject matter of the petition, as the petitioner has not come to this Court at the time when the vehicle was seized, impugning the action of the finance company. The petitioner is challenging the orderdated 14.07.2009 whereby he has been directed to deposit registration book in the office of the respondentNo.1. Grievance of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded, is not correct as it is evident from the impugned order itself that proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. ^ '^^i^;fi^;?%^p5^||^j|^ ^ 10. This Court cannot direct at this stage to accept the proposal of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount and release the vehicle, though, the same had already been sold. 1 donot found any illegality, perversity or irregularity in the impugned order. Thus, no interference is warranted in the case. 11. Smt.Kochar relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur & Oth^rs\ ICICI Bank (supra), is of no assistance to the petitioner in the facts of the instant case. In ICICI Bank (supra), the challenge was to the taking of the possession of the truck by the Bank. When the truck was taken by the financer, the truck owner lodged a complaint in the police station. 12. In thecase on hand, this was not the case as there is no challenge to the taking possession of the vehicle by the finance company, Cholamandalam at the appropriate stage, and secondly, the petitioner has also not taken any such step by filing a case against the finance company-Cholamandalam for allegedly using unlawful means to take possession of the vehide of the petitioner. In the instant case, as aforestated the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 to handover the registration book for breach ofterms and conditions ofthe hire-purchase-agreement, to the office of the respondent No. 1. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in the case and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge ' (2007)28cc 711