Kerala High Court
Santhosh Kumar vs Regional Transport Officer on 10 October, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
2024:KER:75402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27907 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
SANTHOSH KUMAR,AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. VASU NK , RESIDING AT PUTHUKUDI (H)
KOTTAM PARAMBHU, CHELAVOOR P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
G.HARIHARAN
PRAVEEN.H.
K.S.SMITHA
B.R.SINDU
V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
V.ROHITH
AFNA V.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
GROUND FLOOR CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
2 M/S. SAKTHI FINANCE,
5/2248(D)INDIRA GANDHI ROAD KOZHIKODE ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 673004
SMT. JASMIN M.M -R1
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:75402
WP(C) NO. 27907 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved
by the fact that the vehicle of the petitioner has been
blacklisted owing to a request made by the 2 nd respondent-
Finance Company.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in
Writ Appeal No.1756 of 2023 has held that the officials of the
Motor Vehicle Department cannot act on the request of a
private party and order blacklisting the vehicle as the dispute
between the private parties have to be settled in a manner
known to law.
3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that,
apart from the request made by the 2 nd respondent, the vehicle
of the petitioner has also been blacklisted on account of the fact
that there are tax arrears. It is submitted that if the tax arrears
are remitted by the petitioner, the blacklisting of the vehicle
can be removed.
4. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for
the 2nd respondent.
2024:KER:75402
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case , I am of the
view that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court
in the judgment dated 22.12.2023 in Writ Appeal No.1756 of
2023 squarely applies to the facts of this case. It was held:-
''3. The learned Single Judge noted that there
exists a dispute between the parties and that the blacklist is
legal.
4. It is to be noted that the public authority is not
competent to encourage any private dispute between the
parties by invoking the statutory provisions. If there is any
private dispute existing between the parties, they are free to
move the competent court for redressal of their private
dispute. In the colour of a private dispute, the statutory
provisions cannot be invoked to blacklist a vehicle. No
doubt, if any order is passed by the civil court or competent
authority, that order will have to be honoured by the public
authority.
5. It is to be noted that under Section 2(30) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the owner is defined as follows:
"owner" means a person in whose name a motor
vehicle stands registered, and where such
person is a minor, the guardian of such minor,
and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the
subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an
agreement of lease or an agreement of
hypothecation, the person in possession of the
vehicle under that agreement.
An owner includes a person in possession of the vehicle.
Therefore, the owner need not be a registered owner. If the
competent authority is satisfied that the person seeking a
fitness certificate is the owner, then the public authority is
acting in accordance with law. We make it clear that this
2024:KER:75402
Court is not clothing any right for the appellant to get a
fitness certificate. It is for the public authority to decide
whether based on the materials produced, the petitioner can
be treated as an owner for obtaining a fitness certificate. We
are only interfering with the action of the public authority in
blacklisting the vehicle because of the private dispute.
According to us, it cannot be done unless the parties obtain
an order from the competent court in regard to the subject
of the dispute. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set
aside. There shall be an order to lift the blacklisting of the
vehicle in question. However, we make it clear that this will
be subject to any civil dispute between the parties and
subject to any order to be passed by the competent civil
court. ''
However, since it is submitted by the learned Government
Pleader that there are tax arrears, I am of the opinion that the
writ petition can be disposed of directing that, on the petitioner
approaching the 1st respondent, he shall be informed of any tax
arrears due in respect of the vehicle and on the petitioner
remitting the said tax arrears, blacklisting of the vehicle shall
be removed notwithstanding any request made by the 2 nd
respondent.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ajt
2024:KER:75402
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27907/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
OF THE BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL 58
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM G INTIMATION MADE
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 30.11.2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RC STATUS OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KL 58-9666 AS ON
30.06.2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
03.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
AGAINST THE BLACKLISTING OF THE VEHICLE
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
08.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER
