Gujarat High Court High Court

Mohammadumar vs State on 13 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Mohammadumar vs State on 13 September, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10410/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10410 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

MOHAMMADUMAR
AHMEDBHAI QURESHI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
RAMKRISHNA B DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR AMIT PATEL AGP  for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 13/09/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
learned advocate Mr.R.B.Dave for petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Amit
Patel for respondent No.1.

2. The
grievance of present petitioner is that respondent No.3 herein is not
deciding the issue in respect to fresh certificate of registration
which required to be issued in favour of present petitioner under
Section 51(5) of the MV Act,1988.

3. A
request was made by petitioner to the Regional Transport Officer to
issue fresh registration in respect to vehicle in question bearing
No.GJ-1-AU-4698. He submitted that respondent No.3 herein is not
passing any order in spite of the notice has been served through
registered owner of the motor vehicle to surrender certificate of
registration for cancellation and thereafter, issue a fresh
registration certificate in the name of petitioner.

4. In
view of above, it is directed to respondent No.3 – the Regional
Transport Officer to consider the application made by respondent No.4
ICICI Bank ltd. to issue fresh certificate of the vehicle in
question in favour of present petitioner because the vehicle in
question was purchased by petitioner from respondent No.4. Therefore,
it is directed to respondent No.3 to consider such request made by
respondent No.4 and to decide it in accordance with law after
considering the reply, if any, filed by respondent No.5, within a
period of one month from the date of receiving copy of present order
and communicate the decision to petitioner.

5. In
view of aforesaid observations and directions, present petition is
disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service
is permitted.

(H.K.RATHOD,J.)

(vipul)

   

Top