Yasir.C.H vs The Joint Regional Transport ...

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 12676 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 June, 2021

Kerala High Court
Yasir.C.H vs The Joint Regional Transport ... on 1 June, 2021
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
    TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2021/11TH JYAISHTA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 11248 OF 2021


PETITIONER:
0



          YASIR C.H., S/O.HASSAN,
          CHEMBAKATH HOUSE, ANAKKAMPOYIL P.O.,
          THIRUVAMBADI, KOZHIKODE.

          BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS


RESPONDENT:
0



          THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
          SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KODUVALLUY,
          KOZHIKODE,PIN-673 572.


     BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP              FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME              DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No. 11248/2021
                                :2 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of June, 2021 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to direct the respondent to return the original Power of Attorney (Ext.P1) to the petitioner forthwith by retaining the copy of the same, enabling the petitioner to challenge an Award before the District Court, Kozhikode effectively.

2. The petitioner would state that he is the Power of Attorney holder of Sri. Niyasudheen, who is owner of vehicle bearing No.KL-57Q-6815, which is registered with the respondent. In connection with a hearing conducted by the respondent, the Power of Attorney was produced for verification. The original Power of Attorney was retained by the respondent and was not returned to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner, as a Power of Attorney holder of Niyasudheen, filed O.P. under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration WP(C) No. 11248/2021 :3 : and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Sub Court, Kozhikode. However, the said O.P. is not being numbered as the petitioner has not produced the original Power of Attorney before the registry of the court. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application to the respondent seeking return of the original Power of Attorney. However, the respondent has not responded to the request. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondent.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted the original of Ext.P1 Power of Attorney, to the respondent. As the petitioner can file original petition before the Sub Court, Kozhikode invoking Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on behalf of Niyasudheen only with the production of the original Power of Attorney, the respondent cannot further retain the said Power of Attorney. It will amount to preventing the petitioner and the said Niyasudheen from approaching competent court to enforce legal right. WP(C) No. 11248/2021 :4 : In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to retain a copy of Ext.P1 Power of Attorney and return the original Power of Attorney to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/02.06.2021 WP(C) No. 11248/2021 :5 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11248/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED
                   10.04.2019   ISSUED   IN   FAVOUR    OF   THE
                   PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2         TRUE   COPY   OF  THE    PROCEEDINGS    DATED

30.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL PETITION DATED 8.03.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER DATED 12.03.2021 ncd