High Court Kerala High Court

Joseph Kurian vs Regional Transport Officer on 13 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Joseph Kurian vs Regional Transport Officer on 13 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17715 of 2008(H)


1. JOSEPH KURIAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. FAISAL, S/O.MUTHU, THERUVATH HOUSE,

4. SREENIVASAN, CHALATHOORVALAPPIL HOUSE,

5. THE MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :13/06/2008

 O R D E R
                           ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                         ===============
                      W.P.(C) NO. 17715 OF 2008 H
                     ====================

                  Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008

                              J U D G M E N T

Petitioner submits that he had purchased a car, availing of hire

purchase from the 5th respondent. It is stated that the vehicle was

entrusted to the 3rd respondent on rental basis. According to him, the 3rd

respondent misused the vehicle and the registration certificate which was

also in his custody. It is stated by the petitioner that thereupon he filed a

complaint on this and a crime has been registered against the 3rd

respondent. Petitioner submits that as the 3rd respondent did not return

the registration certificate, he had applied for a duplicate Registration

Certificate and that the same was declined by the Registering Authority

stating that going by the records, the 4th respondent was the registered

owner.

2. It is contended that even if any such action has been effected

that has been done without complying with the procedural requirements of

Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to him, neither he

nor the financier had agreed for such a change of ownership. Thereupon

the petitioner filed Ext.P12 complaint before the 1st respondent and in this

WPC 17715/08
:2 :

writ petition what is sought for by the petitioner is that the 1st respondent

should take note of Ext.P12 and pass orders thereon.

3. In the facts as stated by the petitioner, I feel if Ext.P12 has

been received, the 1st respondent should take necessary action thereon.

4. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st

respondent shall take note of Ext.P12, consider the same with notice to

the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 and pass orders thereon. This the 1st

respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8

weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st

respondent for compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.

Rp