Yasir.C.H vs The Joint Regional Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12676 Ker

          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

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

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

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