Muhammed Rafeeq Tunelakachi vs The Regional Transport Authority
2022 Latest Caselaw 1170 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 1013 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            MUHAMMED RAFEEQ, TUNELAKACHI,
            S/O.MAHAMOOD P.P., RESIDING AT FATHIBIS,
            NEAR JASINTHA BUILDING, P.O.MATOOL,
            KANNUR - 670 325.

            BY ADVS.
            I.DINESH MENON
            L.RAJESH NARAYAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1       REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
            KANNUR - 670002.

    2       THE SECRETARY,
            REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR - 670002.

    3       NISAR AHAMED,
            S/O.MAHAMOOD, ASIA MANZIL, NEAR SAIDAR PALLY,
            P.O.MADAYI, KANNUR - 670 304.

            SMT. K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG
WITH W.P.(C)NO.2845 OF 2022 ON 28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 1013 OF 2022
                             -2-



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943
                   WP(C) NO. 2845 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          MUHAMMED RAFEEQ TUNELAKACHI,
          S/O. MAHAMOOD P.P., RESIDING AT FATHIBIS,
          NEAR JASINTHA BUILDING, P.O. MATOOL,
          KANNUR - 670 325.

          BY ADVS.I.DINESH MENON
          L.RAJESH NARAYAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
          REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KANNUR P.O.,
          KANNUR - 670 002.

    2     THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
          REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KANNUR P.O.,
          KANNUR - 670 002.

    3     NISAR AHAMED,
          S/O. MAHAMOOD ASIA MANZIL, NEAR SAIDAR PALLY,
          P.O. MADAYI, KANNUR - 670 304.

          SMT. K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.1013 OF 2022 ON 28.01.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 1013 OF 2022
                                       -3-

                                  JUDGMENT

[ WP(C)No.1013/2022 & WP(C)No.2845/2022]

The afore two writ petitions have been filed

by the same petitioner, making identical

allegations against the owner of two different

vehicles. The said owner has been arrayed as

respondent No.3 in both these cases.

2. Sri.I.Dinesh Menon - learned counsel for

the petitioner, submitted that his client had

entered into an agreement of sale with the 3 rd

respondent for the purchase of two stage

carriages, along with its permits, on 25.05.2018;

but that under a nefarious design, said respondent

is now attempting to sell the same to another

person. He says that his client, therefore, had no

other option but to prefer Ext.P1 objections

before the 1st and 2nd respondents; and prays that

before the application of the 3rd respondent for WP(C) NO. 1013 OF 2022

transfer of the vehicles and its permits, is

acceded to, his client may also be given an

opportunity of being heard and his afore

objections properly considered.

3. However, in response, Sri.K.V.Gopinathan

Nair - learned counsel appearing for the 3rd

respondent, submitted that not only are the

Agreements of Sale vitiated by fraud and

misrepresentation, the petitioner is, in fact,

attempting to unduly enrich himself by misusing a

Power of Attorney, which was given by his client

when he was abroad. He submitted that there are

several complaints made by his client against the

petitioner and therefore, that his present attempt

to intervene in legal processes before the

statutory Authorities is extremely suspicious and

untenable.

4. Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, thereafter,

submitted that, contrary to the allegations of the WP(C) NO. 1013 OF 2022

petitioner, his client has not yet thought of

selling the vehicles or permits to any other

person, though he may do so in future. He

submitted that, therefore, the cause of action now

projected by the petitioner is apocryphal.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader -

Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that, though the

Regional Transport Authority (RTA) does not intend

to, in any manner, involve in the internecine

disputes between the parties, the question whether

the petitioner should be heard, even if any

application is made by the 3rd respondent, can be

decided only at the relevant time and not

speculatively. She submitted that no such

application has been preferred by the 3rd

respondent yet, and that, as per the records

presently available, he continues to be the owner

of the vehicles and holder of permits thereon.

She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be WP(C) NO. 1013 OF 2022

dismissed.

6. In reply, Sri.I.Dinesh Menon - learned

counsel for the petitioner, submitted that if the

3rd respondent has not made any application for

transfer of vehicles or its permits, then

certainly his client will await until any such

action is taken by him.

7. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it

is clear that the sole prayer of the petitioner in

these cases is that his objections be heard before

the application of the 3rd respondent for transfer

of the vehicles and its permits in favour of

another, is considered. He, however, does not have

a case that 3rd respondent cannot renew the permits

in his own name, in the meanwhile.

In the afore circumstances and since the 3rd

respondent says that he has not made any

application for transfer of the vehicles or WP(C) NO. 1013 OF 2022

permits in favour of any other person yet, I

dispose of these writ petitions; however, leaving

full liberty to the petitioner to approach the RTA

appropriately at the relevant time when any such

application is made in future.

I, however, make it clear that this Court has

not considered any of the rival contentions on its

merits and that all of them are left open, to be

impelled and pursued by the parties, as and when

it becomes warranted in future.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 1013 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1013/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN THAT THE PERMIT AND VEHICLE MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED WITHOUT HEARING THE VERSION OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 1-11-2021

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 25-5-2018

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FORMS SIGNED

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER SUBMITTED TO TRANSFER THE PERMIT AND VEHICLE

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE WP(C) NO. 1013 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2845/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN THAT THE PERMIT AND VEHICLE MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED WITHOUT HEIRING THE VERSION OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 1.11.2021.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 25.5.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 SERIES TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FORMS SIGNED.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER SUBMITTED TO TRANSFER THE PERMIT AND VEHICLE.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP NO. 1013/2022 DATED 12.01.2022.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE