V.C.Pearson vs The Joint Regional Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10650 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10650 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 October, 2022

Kerala High Court

V.C.Pearson vs The Joint Regional Transport ... on 21 October, 2022

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
      FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 33704 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              V.C.PEARSON
              AGED 55 YEARS
              "VADAKKEKUDIYIRIPPIL HOUSE"
              UZHAVOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 634

              BY ADVS.
              G.HARIHARAN
              PRAVEEN.H.
              K.S.SMITHA
              V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
              ANJALY T.A
              M.V.VIPINDAS


RESPONDENTS:

              THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
              SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM
              DISTRICT - 691 506

              DINKER
              S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI.
              MURALI SADANAM, VENDAR, PUTHUR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA
              TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 507
              REGISTERED OWNER OF BUS NO.K38C-9412


              SRI.V.K.SUNIL, SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 33704 OF 2022
                                               2


                                    JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1st respondent to consider and take decision on Ext.P2 objection filed by the petitioner against transfer of ownership of the vehicle mentioned in Ext.P1 after hearing the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the 1 st respondent from effecting transfer of ownership of the vehicle mentioned in Ext.P1 till a decision is taken on Ext.P2 objection filed by the petitioner.

(iii) Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filling of translation of the vernacular documents."

2. According to the petitioner, he entered into a sale

agreement with the 2nd respondent, who is the registered owner of

bus bearing Registration No.KL-38C-9412 on 28.07.2018 on an

agreed price of Rs.12,75,000/-. It is also the case of the petitioner

that during the subsistence of the agreement referred above, the

vehicle has been agreed to be sold to another person named Mr.Binu,

vide agreement dated 24.08.2018. According to the petitioner, there

are some disputes subsisting between the petitioner herein and the WP(C) NO. 33704 OF 2022

person named Binu, who has agreed to purchase the vehicle from the

petitioner. It is further stated that without the knowledge of the

petitioner, the 2nd respondent is attempting to effect transfer of

ownership in the name of another person to defeat the interest of the

petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 objection before the 1 st

respondent. The prayer in this writ petition is to consider Ext.P2

objection.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader. No notice is issued to the 2 nd

respondent and if the 2nd respondent is aggrieved by any of the

directions issued in this judgment, the 2 nd respondent is free to file a

review petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contentions in this writ petition. On the other hand, the learned

Government Pleader seriously opposed the prayer in this writ

petition.

5. According to the learned Government Pleader, the

petitioner has no locus standi to file an objection because he is not

the registered owner. He has to establish that he is the owner before

a civil court.

WP(C) NO. 33704 OF 2022

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader. I don't want to make any

observation about the merit of the case. The petitioner submitted

Ext.P2 objection before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent can be

directed to consider the objection in accordance with law. The

maintainability of the objection also can be considered by the 1 st

respondent. Before deciding the matter, an opportunity of hearing

should be given to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

1. The 1st respondent will consider Ext.P2 objection and

pass appropriate orders in it as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate, within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. Before passing final orders, the 1 st respondent will give

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, 2 nd respondent

and the other affected parties.