Kerala High Court
Raji Raj vs State Of Kerala on 28 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 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10350 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RAJI RAJ
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,
PROPRIETOR, VAISHNAVI TRADERS
KUNNUVILA VEEDU, THAMARAKUDI P.O.,
MYLOM, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691560.
BY ADVS.
K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR
VISMAYA VENUGOPAL
K.K.CHANDRALEKHA
ANUPAMA JOHNY
K.S.SUDHA
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, PIN - 695014.
3 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PUTHOOR ROAD,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691506.
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM - 691001.
W.P.(C)No.10350 of 2024
:2:
5 SHAJI.S
THEKKUVILA MELETHIL, KUDAVATTOOR P.O.,
ASANMUKKU, ODANAVATTOM,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691512.
BY ADVS.
VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
B.ANUSREE
ABHILASH C.V.
VARUN JACOB
BINOY DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.10350 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle
bearing No.KL-81/1401, a 2020 model Tipper Lorry. She got
the vehicle registered with the 3rd respondent. The vehicle
was being used in connection with activities of her business
concern, 'Vaishnavi Traders'. The vehicle was entrusted to 5 th
respondent to use the vehicle for his own purpose, from
August 2023 to December 2023 on condition of payment of
₹20,000/- per month.
2. When the petitioner in the month of January 2024,
demanded the return of vehicle, the 5th respondent evaded,
giving some lame excuses. On enquiry, it was revealed that
the vehicle was transferred in the name of 5 th respondent
without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. Such
transfer was found to be not on the basis of a prescribed
Form also. As such the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 before the
3rd respondent seeking cancellation of the illegally obtained
registration and to restore the registration in her name.
3. Ext.P2 request before the 4th respondent also was
filed seeking repossession of the vehicle from the custody of
the 5th respondent. The petitioner has reliable information
that the manipulation and illegal transfer was effected with
the support of some of the officials attached to the 3 rd
respondent. As such the petitioner's grievance remain
unattended till date, contends the Counsel for the petitioner.
4. The 5th respondent entered appearance and
resisted the writ petition. The 5 th respondent submitted that
the vehicle was purchased by the 5th respondent on an
arrangement that the 5th respondent will pay the amount
payable to the Financier. Therefore, the 5 th respondent is the
absolute owner of the vehicle.
5. The 5th respondent further submitted that he had
approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.14229 of 2024,
where also the registered ownership of the vehicle was under
consideration. This Court, as per judgment dated 05.04.2024,
disposed of the said W.P.(C) No.14229 of 2024 directing the
Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kottarakkara to consider
Ext.P5 reply submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate
decision thereon after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and respondents 5 and 6.
6. Heard.
7. I find that in this writ petition, the order sought for
by the petitioner is to direct the very same Joint Regional
Transport Officer to cancel the transfer of registration in
favour of the 5th respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.14229 of 2024 and to restore the name of the petitioner
as the registered owner.
8. As the issues involved in W.P.(C) No.14229 of
2024 and in this writ petition (W.P.(C) No.10350 of 2024) are
interlinked and interconnected, it would be only appropriate
that the Joint Regional Transport Officer takes a decision in
this matter also, at least at the first instance.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 3 rd
respondent-Joint Regional Transport Officer to consider the
prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition along with the
issue remitted to the Joint Regional Transport Officer as per
W.P.(C) No.14229 of 2024. The Joint Regional Transport
Officer shall hear the petitioners in both the writ petitions and
other affected parties, if any, and take appropriate decision in
accordance with law. It is made clear that the parties will be
at liberty to challenge appropriately, the orders to be passed
by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, if the order goes
against them. As the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2
complaint before the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent may
consider the same and take appropriate action if warranted,
in accordance with law.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10350/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
09-02-2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
10.02.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
DATED 10.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
