Jalal C.M vs The Joint Regional Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17141 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
     FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 16129 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          JALAL C.M.
          AGED 54 YEARS
          S/O. MAKKAR, CHIRANGARA VEEDU, PANIPRA P.O.,
          KOTTAPPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686692.

          BY ADVS.
          G.HARIHARAN
          PRAVEEN.H.



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
          SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI
          DISTRICT-685533.

    2     MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,
          2ND FLOOR, NOEL HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA, PADAMUGHAL,
          KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

    3     MR. NADARAJAN M.,
          S/O. MOHAN NANU, SARAVANA BHAVAN, PAMBANAR, PEERMADE
          TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685531.

    4     NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTRE,
          CIVIL STATION, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN-682030.


OTHER PRESENT:

          SR.GP V.K SUNIL




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16129 OF 2021                 2

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein claims that he has been

authorised by the second respondent to file an

application for the issuance of fresh RC. In fact, the

vehicle belonged to the third respondent and was

financed by the second respondent. Since default was

committed, the vehicle was stated to be repossessed.

The second respondent applied for fresh RC by

application dated 24.06.2021. The grievance of the

petitioner is that the above application has not been

accepted online and fee thereon has also not been

accepted, on the premise that an objection has been

filed by the original owner.

2. The learned senior Government Pleader

submitted that the third respondent has filed a

complaint before the legal service committee, which

registered it as a PLP and notice was issued to the third

respondent and Sub Regional transport Officer, who is

the first respondent.

3. Having considered this, I am satisfied that

merely on an objection, consideration of transfer

application should be kept in abeyance. Interest of

justice will be served if the third respondent is given an

opportunity of being heard when application for issuance

of the fresh RC is considered. Accordingly, I am inclined

to dispose of the Writ Petition itself, with a direction to

the first respondent to intimate the fourth respondent to

make necessary arrangement to accept Ext.P2

application along with the fresh RC in relation to the

vehicle No.KL-37D-1807, for which Ext.P3 authorisation

is stated to have been issued. NIC shall enable the

acceptance of Ext.P2 application. After accepting the

application, if it is found to be in order, the first

respondent shall process the application and appropriate

decision shall be taken with notice to the second and

third respondent.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16129/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE NO.KL-37D- 1807.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.6.2021 MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF FRESH RC IN THEIR NAME MADE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED 23.7.2021 MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WP(C) NO.1400/2021 DATED 8.3.2021.