Tuesday, 21, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sobin Mathew vs The Regional Transport Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 12506 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 12506 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sobin Mathew vs The Regional Transport Officer on 21 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                         WP(C) NO. 15041 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

              SOBIN MATHEW,
              AGED 52 YEARS
              PULIYURUMBIL HOUSE, ELAMPALLY P.O.,
              ANICKAD, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 685503

              BY ADVS.
              LAVARAJ M.G.


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
              REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
              CIVIL STATION P.O., KOTTAYAM.,
              PIN - 686002
     2        SAKTHI FINANCE LIMITED.,
              REGISTERED OFFICE 62,
              DR. NANJAPPA ROAD,P.B. NO.3745,
              COIMBATORE., PIN - 641018
     3        P.A. SHAJAHAN,
              AGED 65 YEARS
              PARAKKAL HOUSE, P.C. KAVALA P.O.,
              PAYIPAD, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686537

              BY ADVS.

              N.V.VINAY
              KRUSCH P.A(K/750/1999
              SRI.BINOY DAVIS
              SRI. J.RAMKUMAR
              SRI. ARUN P. ANTONY


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023
                                2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024

The petitioner is the registered owner of a Stage

Carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-05AN-7601. The

vehicle did not have any endorsement as relating to finance or

hire purchase.

2. The petitioner states that he had entered into an

agreement of sale of the vehicle with one Mr.Joseph Mathew,

but the same was not materialized. It was from his possession

that the vehicle was seized by the 2 nd respondent. There are

only certain private transaction with the 2nd respondent

Finance Company by the petitioner. There was no Hire

Purchase agreement or endorsement in the RC particulars of

the vehicle and the vehicle was not offered as security. There

are certain disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent relating to the amount payable in the private WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

transaction and the vehicle had been repossessed in a legal

manner.

3. The petitioner earlier approached this Court filing

W.P.(C) No.34477 of 2022 and this Court directed to consider

the objections raised by the petitioner relating to the attempt

on the part of the financier to get fresh RC Book. As on date

no orders are passed on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.34477 of

2022. Now, the petitioner is in receipt of a notice dated

13.04.2023 which was served on 27.04.2023 personally at his

residence. In the said notice, there is a reference of judgment

in W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023. The 3rd respondent herein had

approached this Court for consideration of his representation

for transfer of ownership of vehicle to his name. He claims

that auction was conducted and he was the successful bidder.

4. The petitioner submits that unless and until an

enquiry is conducted as to whether the vehicle is covered with

a valid Hire Purchase agreement or not, the 1st respondent WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

could not go ahead with the transfer proceedings, because

the same itself will be illegal, if it is found that there is no

finance transaction between the petitioner as well as the 2 nd

respondent as to the vehicle. Ext.P3 notice shows that the

judgment in W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023 was procured by the 3rd

respondent without issuing notice to the petitioner herein and

interestingly the notice does not disclose any date on which

the petitioner has to appear. Hence, the intention is only to

steal a march over the petitioner's rights.

5. The Regional Transport Officer ought to have

conducted enquiry as decided by this Court in W.P.(C)

No.34477 of 2022, contends the petitioner. Hence, the entire

exercise of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,

Kottayam in issuing notice to comply with the directions in

W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023 without complying with the directions

in W.P.(C) No. 34477 of 2022 is per se illegal. Hence the

petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notice in this writ petition. WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

6. Counsel for the 3rd respondent entered

appearance and resisted the writ petition. The 3 rd respondent

submitted that he is the auction purchaser. The 3 rd

respondent points out that the petitioner herein had filed

W.P.(C) No.34477 of 2022 directing the respondent-

Regional Transport Officer to consider Ext.P3 objection

preferred by the petitioner against issuance of fresh

Registration Certificate in the name of any Finance

Company. The said writ petition was disposed of as per

Ext.P2 judgment dated 28.10.2022 directing that if the 1 st

respondent-Regional Transport Officer receives an

application at the instance of the 2nd respondent to change

the ownership of the vehicle, the 1st respondent shall issue

notice to the petitioner. An opportunity of hearing should also

be given to the petitioner before passing any orders.

7. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent filed W.P.(C)

No.939 of 2023 before this Court against blacklisting of the WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

vehicle. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P4

judgment dated 24.03.2023 directing the 2nd respondent-

Regional Transport Officer therein to take up Ext.P6

application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate

orders with notice to respondents 3 to 5. Orders were

directed to be passed within six weeks.

8. The 3rd respondent submitted that pursuant to the

judgments of this Court, the Regional Transport Officer has

issued Ext.P3 notice dated 13.04.2023, which is challenged

in this writ petition. A writ petition against a notice should not

be entertained, contended the counsel for the 3 rd

respondent.

9. Government Pleader entered appearance on

behalf of the 1st respondent and resisted the writ petition. On

behalf of the 1st respondent, it is submitted that in deference

to the judgment of this Court, notices dated 13.04.2023 have

been sent to the Finance Company, the petitioner and his WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

wife for personal hearing. The Financier attended the

personal hearing on 18.04.2023, but not the petitioner. After

waiting for another seven days, notices were served to the

family members of the petitioner and his wife through the

Circle Officer on 27.04.2023. But the petitioner and his wife

did not appear for the personal hearing.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the respective learned counsel appearing for

respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader

representing the 1st respondent.

11. It is evident from the pleadings that both the

parties had approached this Court earlier raising their

grievance and this Court had delivered Exts.P2 and P4

judgments. Pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.939 of

2023, the Regional Transport Officer has issued Ext.P3

notice to the petitioner. When the Regional Transport Officer

is considering the matter pursuant to the directions given by WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

this Court, the said proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance

without sufficient reasons.

12. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the

writ petition can be disposed of directing the Regional

Transport Officer, Kottayam to bring the proceedings as per

Ext.P3 to its logical conclusion after giving a hearing notice

afresh to the writ petitioner and respondents 2 and 3.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the

1st respondent-Regional Transport Officer to bring Ext.P3

proceedings to its logical conclusion within a period of one

month, after issuing notice to the petitioner and respondents

2 and 3.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15041/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE KL 05 AN 7601 DATED 23.8.2016.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP [C] NO. 34477/2022 DATED 28.10.2022.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.J6/391466/2022/K DATED 13.4.2023. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP[C] NO.939/2023 DATED 24.3.2023.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.4.2023.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R3 (A) A TRUE COPY OF WRIT PETITION NO.

939/2023 FILED BY ME EXHIBIT R3 (B) A TRUE COPY APPLICATION FILED BY ME BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED 31.10.2019 EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 30.07.2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12.08.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter