IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9905 of 2008(D)
1. FOUSIA MOHAMMAD,AL-FATHAH MANZIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTERING AUTHORIY
3. ICICI BANK LTD, KARTHIKA TOWERS,IST
4. MUHAMMAD,S/O. PAREETH, CHENTHARA HOUSE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.9905/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner submits that, he had purchased a lorry
availing of finance from the 3rd respondent. It is stated that
in October, 2007, the 3rd respondent took forceful
possession of the vehicle and subsequently made an
application under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, for a duplicate certificate of registration. Thereupon
the second respondent issued Ext.P2 notice to the petitioner
and she filed Ext.P3 objection. Though she was called for a
hearing, due to sickness she sought for an adjournment. It
is stated that thereafter nothing further was heard. When
she came to know that duplicate RC was proposed to be
issued to the 3rd respondent, a writ petition was filed before
this court as WP(c).No.7241/2008 which was disposed by
WP(c).No.9905/08 2
Ext.P5 judgment directing that if orders have not been
passed on the application made by the 3rd respondent, the
objectiion filed by the petitioner should also be considered.
Petitioner states that when Ext.P5 judgment was delivered
to the second respondent, she was informed that on
26.7.2008 Ext.P7 order was passed, allowing the request of
the 3rd respondent. It is thereupon that this writ petition has
been filed challenging Ext.P7.
2. The 4th respondent submits that, following Ext.P7, by
proceeding dated 29.7.2008 registration was also
transferred to the 3rd respondent and that in an auction that
was held subsequently he had purchased the vehicle for
valid consideration. It is also stated that by Ext.R4(a),
registration also has been transferred in his favour.
3. Although the petitioner is impugning Ext.P7 in this
writ petition it is seen that against Ext.P7,the petitioner has
filed Ext.P8 appeal before the Transport Commissioner,
Thiruvananthapuram. However, the fact remains that it is
not the Transport Commissioner but the Deputy Transport
Commissioner Thiruvananthapuram, who is the notified
WP(c).No.9905/08 3
appellate authority. Therefore Ext.P8 appeal filed before
wrong authority cannot be treated as an appeal properly
filed to direct its consideration.
4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already
availed of the appellate remedy provided under the Statute
itself, though before a wrong authority, I am inclined to
dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to
produce a copy of Ext.P8 before the Deputy Transport
Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, who on receipt of the
same shall treat Ext.P8 as a regular appeal filed against
Ext.P7. The Deputy Transport Commissioner shall there
upon issue notice to the petitioner, and respondents 3 and 4
herein, hear them and pass final orders in this matter. It is
directed that a copy of Ext.P8 shall be filed as above before
the Deputy Transport Commissioner within 3 weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.9905/08 4