Kerala High Court
Shaji S vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14229 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHAJI S
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O SOMANATHAN,
THEKKUVILA MELETHIL, KUDAVATTOOR P.O,
ASANMUKKU, ODANAVATTOM,
KOLLAM., PIN - 691512.
BY ADVS.
VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
B.ANUSREE
ABHILASH C.V.
VARUN JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONARATE,
2ND FLOOR TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKADU,
THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.
3 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
PUTHOOR ROAD, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM., PIN - 691506.
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM - 691001.
5 RAJI RAJ
D/O RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,VYSHNAVI VEEDU,
MUTHALA DESOM, PALLIKAL VILLAGE,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691566.
W.P.(C)No.14229 of 2024
:2:
6 BINU K
S/O KARUNAKARAN PILLA, VYSHNAVI VEETIL,
MUTHALA DESOM, PALLIKAL VILLAGE,
KOLLAM., PIN - 691566.
BY ADV.S.GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.14229 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024
The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen. The petitioner
purchased a 'Tata Signa Lorry' (2020 Model) bearing
registration No.KL-81-1401 from the 5th respondent on
01.09.2023 for a sale consideration of ₹19,00,000/-.
2. As per Ext.P1 Sale Agreement, there was a
stipulation to pay ₹5,50,000/- for closing the finance with
respect to the lorry in ICICI Bank for obtaining the NOC for
changing the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the
petitioner. The 5th respondent had further provided an
authorization letter to be submitted to the ICICI Bank Ltd at
Thiruvananthapuram, entrusting the petitioner to settle the
loan accounts and to further collect the NOC of the vehicle.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner had made payment to
close the loan account pertaining to the lorry and had
collected the NOC for affecting the transfer of ownership as
is evident from Ext.P2. The 5 th respondent assured that she
would take appropriate steps for effecting the change in
ownership before the 3rd respondent.
4. Things being so, to the utter shock and dismay of
the petitioner, he received a show cause notice from the 3 rd
respondent stating that a complaint was received from the
5th respondent regarding the transfer of ownership of the
lorry without the nod or assent of the 5th respondent and by
using her forged signatures. It was also stated in the notice
that pursuant to the direction of the Deputy Transport
Commissioner, they had decided to cancel the present
registration certificate of the vehicle and further directed him
to surrender the same.
5. Ext.P4 notice has been issued after the decision
of the Deputy Transport Commissioner to cancel the present
registration certificate of the petitioner. The same is highly
unlawful, arbitrary and is liable to be interfered with,
contends the petitioner.
6. The petitioner preferred a detailed reply narrating
the entire sequence of the events. It is only with a malafide
intent to fetch unlawful gains, an absolutely baseless
complaint was preferred by the 5th respondent before the 4th
respondent.
7. The apprehension of the petitioner is that without
considering Ext.P5 reply, the 3rd respondent is likely to
cancel the registration of the vehicle in the name of the
petitioner.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1 to 4. In view of the nature of reliefs granted in
this writ petition, notice to respondents 5 and 6 is dispensed
with.
9. Senior Government Pleader submitted that since
the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 reply, the objections of
the petitioner can be considered and a decision can be
taken with notice to respondent 5 and 6.
10. Taking into consideration the afore facts, I am of
the view that since Ext.P4 is only a show cause notice, no
interference is warranted from this Court at this stage. It will
be sufficient if the 3rd respondent considers Ext.P5 reply filed
by the petitioner and take a decision.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the
3rd respondent-Joint Regional Transport Officer,
Kottarakkara, to consider Ext.P5 reply submitted by the
petitioner to Ext.P4 and take appropriate decision thereon
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
respondents 5 and 6.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14229/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 01.09.2023.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER MADE
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER, ICICI
BANK LTD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS.
5,10,000/- TO THE ICICI LOAN ACCOUNT OF
LOAN ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO VYSHANAVI
TRADERS.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
02.04.2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 10.02.2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 09.02.2024
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER
161 CR.PC PERTAINING TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER
161 CR.PC PERTAINING TO JAYADEVAN
