[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
M/S Twenty 17 Scraps And Fragments Llp vs The Deputy Forest Conservator And ... on 27 March, 2026
W.P.(C)No.18546 of 2024
1
2026:KER:26467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 18546 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M/S TWENTY 17 SCRAPS AND FRAGMENTS LLP,
LIZAS RAILWAY ROAD P.O. ARAKKINAR, CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR.P.M LITHAS, PIN - 673028
BY Sr.ADV.SUMATHI DANDAPANI
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY FOREST CONSERVATOR AND WILDLIFE
WARDEN,
WAYANAD WILDLIFE SUB DIVISION,
SULTHAN BATHERY,SULTHAN BATHERY P.O.,
PIN - 673592
2 THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
IMAX BUILDING, CHUNGAM, FEROKE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673631
3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE,
TRANS TOWER,VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN - 695014
BY ADV.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL.GP (FOREST)
ADV.SMT.SURYA BINOY, Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 04.03.2026, THE COURT ON 27.03.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.18546 of 2024
2
2026:KER:26467
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
......................................................
W.P.(C)No.18546 of 2024
.............................................................
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioner purchased a Mahindra Jeep, 2007 model,
bearing registration No. KL-01/AQ-5563, in an auction conducted
on 08.11.2023 by Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited (MSTC)
for the sale of confiscated and condemned vehicles as per the
auction advertisement dated 11.01.2023. The petitioner was
confirmed as the highest bidder and remitted the sale
consideration to the account of the 1st respondent, whereupon
MSTC issued Ext.P2 delivery order dated 01.12.2023.
2. Pursuant thereto, the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P3
proceedings dated 01.12.2023 directing the Assistant Wildlife
Warden, Tholpetty, to hand over possession of the vehicle to the
petitioner. The vehicle had a valid registration from 28.04.2007 to
27.04.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to apply before
2026:KER:26467
the 2nd respondent for renewal of the certificate of registration,
the vehicle having completed fifteen years of age, and also sought
transfer of ownership in his name in accordance with Rule 59 of
the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. However, the petitioner
was unable to remit the required fee online as access was denied
on account of Ext.P5 letter dated 10.08.2023 issued by the office of
the Transport Commissioner pursuant to Ext.P6 notification dated
16.01.2023 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
which amended the CMV Rules incorporating Rule 52A, directing
all Heads of Departments not to permit Government vehicles
which have completed fifteen years of age to be used on public
roads and the registration certificate of Government vehicle shall
expire after the lapse of 15 years and the disposal of such vehicles
is required to be ensured through registered vehicles scraping
facility set up in accordance with Central Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Rules, 2021.
2.1. The petitioner contends that the said notifications do
not apply to the vehicle purchased by him, as the vehicle was not
2026:KER:26467
intended to be scrapped but was sold through e-auction. It is
submitted that Ext.P1 auction notification describes the vehicle as
a confiscated vehicle and does not indicate that the vehicle was to
be sold as scrap. The petitioner further relies on instances where
vehicles older than fifteen years were permitted renewal of
registration. In this regard, reference is made to a vehicle bearing
registration No. KLK-8939, whose registration was renewed by the
Assistant Registering Authority, Koduvally, on 03.12.2019.
Similarly, another light motor vehicle manufactured in the year
1997 bearing registration No. KL-11-G-4660 had its registration
renewed for the period from 03.01.2018 to 02.01.2023 by the
Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode. According to the
petitioner, these instances demonstrate that there is no absolute
prohibition against renewal of registration of light motor vehicles
even after completion of fifteen years. The petitioner, therefore,
contends that believing there would be no impediment in the
transfer of ownership and renewal of registration, he purchased
the vehicle at auction, but the 2nd respondent is now refusing to
2026:KER:26467
effect the transfer or renew the registration.
2.2. The petitioner accordingly seeks a direction to the 2 nd
respondent to accept the application and fee for transfer of the
certificate of registration and to renew the registration of the
vehicle, and further seeks a declaration that Exts.P5 and P6 are
inapplicable to the vehicle purchased by him through e-auction.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent, the
Deputy Forest Conservator and Wildlife Warden, Wayanad
Wildlife Sub Division, it is stated that, as per Ext.R1(a)
Government Order, permission was obtained to utilise the services
of MSTC Limited for auctioning and selling vehicles which were
scrapped, condemned, and confiscated by the Kerala Forest
Department. It is submitted that the vehicle bearing registration
No. KL-01-AQ-5563, a Mahindra Jeep used by the Wayanad
Elephant Squad and RRT Range, whose registration expired on
27.04.2022, was condemned by the Department as per order No.
W(3)-6070/2022 dated 05.12.2022 issued by the Wildlife Warden,
Wayanad. It is further stated that the petitioner participated in
2026:KER:26467
the auction and emerged as the successful bidder, and that the
Ext.R1(c) condemned order dated 5.12.2022 relating to the vehicle
was also submitted.
3.1. It is further submitted that in the Ext.R1(b) e-auction
advertisement, it is stated that the vehicle could be inspected
during office hours with the permission of the concerned officer,
that bidders could verify the condition of the vehicle before
participating in the auction, and that no complaints regarding the
condition of the vehicle would be entertained thereafter. In
Ext.R1(e) letter dated 16.10.2023 addressed to MSTC Limited, the
vehicle is specifically described as a condemned vehicle at serial
No.18.
3.2. The 1st respondent further relies on Ext.R1(f), a
handwritten receipt executed on a Rs.200/- stamp paper by the
authorised representative of the petitioner, wherein it is
acknowledged that the vehicle is a condemned vehicle and that
the petitioner had inspected the vehicle prior to the auction and
participated in the auction with full knowledge of its condition.
2026:KER:26467
Reference is also made to Ext.R1(g) order dated 01.12.2023 issued
by the Wildlife Warden, Wayanad, wherein the vehicle is again
described as condemned. It is therefore contended that a person
participating in an auction is expected to understand the contents
of the notification and the relevant orders before participating in
the auction.
4. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner submits that Ext.
R1(a) order dated 15.12.2014, relied on by the respondents, relates
only to vehicles that are confiscated or seized. It is further stated
that the petitioner was not aware that the vehicle had been
condemned by the Department as per the Ext.R1(a) order.
According to the petitioner, in Ext.R1(b) e-auction advertisement
dated 11.01.2023 it was mentioned that the vehicles listed therein
were involved in various forest cases under the Wayanad Wildlife
Division and were confiscated by the Government under Section
61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, and the vehicle in question was
included as Item No.5. Ext.R1(b) is the initial e-auction
advertisement fixing the auction on 08.02.2023, which further
2026:KER:26467
provided that if the auction was not successful on that date, re-
auction could be conducted on subsequent dates from February to
December of the same year. According to the petitioner, since
the vehicle could not be auctioned in the earlier attempts, a re-
auction was eventually conducted on 08.11.2023 as per Ext.P1. In
Ext.P1, the vehicle was described only as a confiscated vehicle.
The petitioner contends that he was not furnished with the earlier
materials, including Ext.R1(b), and was unaware of the earlier
auction attempts and the details mentioned therein. In Ext.P2,
the delivery order also described the vehicle as a confiscated
vehicle.
4.1. The petitioner contends that Ext.R1(f) handwritten
receipt was executed only on the date of delivery, i.e., 11.12.2023,
and it was only in that document that the vehicle was described as
condemned. The petitioner further submits that the RC book of
the vehicle was handed over along with the said document, which,
according to him, indicates that the vehicle was not intended to
be treated as scrap, as there would be no necessity to hand over
2026:KER:26467
the RC book if the vehicle had been sold as a condemned vehicle.
The petitioner relied on Exts.P9 to P21 to contend that, in several
instances, vehicles which had completed fifteen years were
nevertheless transferred in favour of successful bidders pursuant
to auction by Government authorities, and their registration was
subsequently renewed for further periods, thereby indicating a
consistent practice permitting such renewal even beyond the
fifteen-year threshold.
5. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent, Sub-
Regional Transport Officer, pursuant to the direction issued by
this Court on 12.08.2025, it is submitted that though the 2 nd
respondent is not competent to offer remarks regarding the
services rendered by registering authorities, certain factual
details were verified with reference to the Parivahan portal
regarding renewal of registration after completion of fifteen
years. It is stated that vehicle No. KL-58-B-9461, a motor car
purchased on 02.07.2009 and registered on 08.07.2009 at the Sub-
Regional Transport Office, Thalassery, had registration validity up
2026:KER:26467
to 07.07.2024, and that renewal of registration was issued on
05.07.2024, before completion of fifteen years from the date of
registration. As regards vehicle No. KLK-8939, it is stated that the
said motor car was purchased and registered on 12.06.1984, the
owner, who is a private individual, owned the vehicle in his
individual capacity, and is entitled to renew the registration on
expiry of the first fifteen years and thereafter for further periods
of five years each. According to the 2 nd respondent, the restriction
against renewal of registration beyond fifteen years applies only
to vehicles owned by Government authorities covered by
Notification GSR 29(E) dated 16.01.2023 issued by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways and not to vehicles owned by
private individuals.
5.1. It is further stated that vehicle No. KL-01-AX-4914, a
Mahindra jeep initially registered on 18.02.2010 in the name of the
Director, LBS Centre for Science and Technology, was sold to
Sri.Lithas P.M. on 11.01.2025 before the completion of fifteen
years, and thereafter, the renewal of registration was granted on
2026:KER:26467
24.01.2025 on the application of the said individual owner. Since
the vehicle had ceased to be owned by an authority covered by the
aforesaid notification, renewal of registration was permitted.
However, with respect to vehicle No. KL-11-AQ-5563, it is stated
that the vehicle, being under the control of the Government of
Kerala, falls within the purview of Notification GSR 29(E) dated
16.01.2023. Since the registration of the said vehicle expired on
27.04.2022, the Parivahan portal does not permit renewal of
registration, and therefore, the 2nd respondent is unable to render
the service sought by the petitioner. It is accordingly stated that
the writ petition is devoid of merit.
6. A further statement was filed on behalf of the 3 rd
respondent, the Transport Commissioner, pursuant to the
direction issued by this Court on 13.08.2025. It is stated that
vehicle No. KL-11-G-4660 is a Mahindra motor car first registered
on 03.01.1998 and presently owned by Sri. Sangeeth V. As regards
vehicle No. KL-01-AY-7339, it is stated that the vehicle, initially
registered on 19.07.2010 in the name of the Secretary, Attappadi
2026:KER:26467
Co-operative Farming Society, was auctioned on 02.07.2025 to Mr
Shine Mathew before the completion of fifteen years from the
date of initial registration. Thereafter, on submission of the
required documents and upon inspection of the vehicle, the
ownership was transferred and the registration renewed.
6.1. It is stated that renewal of registration of vehicles
owned by private individuals is permissible under Rule 52 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and that the prohibition
contemplated under Rule 52A applies only to vehicles owned by
Government authorities and not to those owned by individuals.
7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government
of Kerala issued Ext.P22 notification dated 21.01.2026, bearing G.O.
(P) No.3/2026/TRANS and SRO No.68/2026 dated 20.01.2026,
amending the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by inserting Rule
98A, which was produced by the petitioner as an additional
document. It is stated therein that as per the amended rule,
notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 52A of
the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the certificate of
2026:KER:26467
registration in respect of motor vehicles owned and controlled by
the State Government shall be renewed for a period of five years
after the expiry of fifteen years from the date of initial
registration or up to the age of twenty years from the date of
initial registration, whichever is earlier. According to the
petitioner, in view of the said amendment, the registration of the
vehicle in question is liable to be extended from the date of initial
registration on 28.04.2007 up to 27.04.2027 as reflected in Ext.P4.
It is further contended that upon transfer of the vehicle in favour
of the petitioner, the vehicle would cease to be a Government
vehicle and would become a private vehicle, and therefore, there
would be no further restriction in renewing the registration
beyond the year 2027 in accordance with law. It is accordingly
contended that in view of the amendment brought into force, the
registration of the vehicle as per Ext.P4 is liable to be renewed up
to 27.04.2027.
8. An additional statement was thereafter filed by the 3 rd
respondent pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on
2026:KER:26467
11.02.2026. In the said statement, it is contended that the Kerala
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2026, notified by Ext.P22
came into force with effect from 20.01.2026 and do not have any
retrospective operation. According to the 3 rd respondent, the
notification does not contemplate or enable validating or reviving
certificates of registration that had already expired prior to the
said date. It is therefore contended that the amendment cannot
affect auctions conducted prior to 20.01.2026 in respect of
Government vehicles that had already completed fifteen years of
age at the time of auction. It is further contended that the
vehicle in question was condemned and sold as scrap through
MSTC (Metal Scrap Trading Corporation of India Limited) strictly
in accordance with the prescribed procedure for disposal of
condemned Government vehicles. Once a vehicle is condemned
and sold as scrap through MSTC, it ceases to be a vehicle capable
of use or registration under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Consequently, the purchaser of metal scrap from a condemned
vehicle cannot claim any right to re-registration or revival of the
2026:KER:26467
certificate of registration. The 3 rd respondent, therefore,
contends that the reliance placed by the petitioner on G.O.(P)
No.3/2026/TRANS dated 20.01.2026 is misconceived, since the
vehicle had already been sold as scrap prior to the issuance of the
said Government Order and therefore, the amendment has no
relevance or applicability to the vehicle involved in the present
case.
9. Heard the learned Senior counsel Smt. Sumathi Dandapani,
instructed by Sri. Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Smt. Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader.
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the
petitioner, who purchased the Government vehicle at auction
after completion of 15 years, is entitled to seek transfer of
ownership and renewal of the certificate of registration of the
vehicle as under Rule 52A of the CMV Rules. This Court had
occasion to consider similar issues in earlier decisions in W.P.(C)
No.13262 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No.42218 of 2025. In W.P.(C)
No.13262 of 2025, this Court held that where a Government
2026:KER:26467
vehicle had already completed fifteen years, was condemned and
thereafter sold through auction only as scrap, re-registration
could not be permitted. It was further held that the State and its
instrumentalities are under a constitutional obligation to ensure
fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness in such transactions,
and that all statutory bars, restrictions and limitations affecting
re-registration or lawful use of the vehicle must be expressly
disclosed as part of the conditions stipulated in the auction
notification itself, failing which such non-disclosure would
amount to suppression of material facts and a breach of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation.
11. In W.P.(C) No.42218 of 2025, on the other hand, the
auction and the application for transfer of ownership were both
made while the certificate of registration of the vehicle was still
valid. The delay in effecting the transfer occurred only due to
administrative lapses on the part of the authorities. It was held
that the petitioner, having acquired title and applied for transfer
within the period of validity of the registration, cannot be denied
2026:KER:26467
transfer on account of such delay, and that the bar under Rule 52A
of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, is inapplicable once the
vehicle ceases to be a Government vehicle.
12. From the materials placed on record in this case, it is
evident that the vehicle in question was initially registered on
28.04.2007, and the certificate of registration was valid only up to
27.04.2022. The auction in which the petitioner participated was
conducted on 08.11.2023. Thus, on the date of the auction itself,
the vehicle had already completed fifteen years from the date of
its initial registration, and the certificate of registration had
already expired. Another crucial aspect that emerges from the
records is that the vehicle had been condemned by the
department prior to the auction, as seen from Ext. R1(b) e-auction
advertisement, Ext. R1(c) condemned order dated 05.12.2022,
Ext.R1(e) communication dated 16.10.2023 addressed to MSTC,
Ext. R1(g) proceedings of the Wildlife Warden, and Ext.R1(f)
undertaking executed by the authorised representative of the
petitioner.
2026:KER:26467
13. Ext. R1(b) e-auction advertisement clearly states that the
vehicles listed therein could be inspected during office hours with
the permission of the concerned officer and that the quality and
condition of the vehicles could be verified by the intending
bidders prior to participating in the auction. It was also
specifically stated that no complaint regarding the condition of
the vehicle would be entertained after the auction.
14. The petitioner, therefore, had sufficient opportunity to
inspect the vehicle prior to participating in the auction and
participated in the auction after acknowledging that the vehicle
was a condemned vehicle. Once the petitioner has participated in
the auction with full knowledge of the condition of the vehicle
and after executing the undertaking to that effect, the principle of
caveat emptor would clearly apply in such circumstances.
15. It is also relevant to note that the vehicle had already
completed fifteen years from the date of initial registration and
its certificate of registration had expired on 27.04.2022, much
prior to the date of auction. The vehicle continued to remain a
2026:KER:26467
Government vehicle until its disposal through the auction process.
Therefore, the restriction contained in the notification issued by
the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways prohibiting renewal
of registration of Government vehicles after completion of fifteen
years would squarely apply to the vehicle in question.
16. The instances relied on by the petitioner to contend
that renewal of registration was permitted even after completion
of 15 years, in Ext. P9 to P21 are therefore distinguishable, since in
all such cases the vehicles were either transferred before
completion of fifteen years or were owned by private individuals
to whom the restriction under Rule 52A was inapplicable, and
hence do not advance the petitioner's claim.
17. The petitioner, however, places reliance on Ext.P22
notification dated 20.01.2026 by which Rule 98A was inserted in
the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, permitting renewal of
registration of vehicles owned and controlled by the State
Government for a period of five years after the expiry of fifteen
years from the date of initial registration or up to the age of
2026:KER:26467
twenty years from the date of initial registration, whichever is
earlier. The petitioner contends that the said notification is
declaratory in nature and therefore retrospective in operation.
18. The question as to whether a statutory provision
operates prospectively or retrospectively is well settled. The
normal rule is that a statute is prospective unless it is expressly or
by necessary implication made retrospective. The principles
governing this aspect have been explained by the Supreme Court
in Sukhram Singh and Others v. Harbheji (MANU/SC/0402/1969),
wherein it was held that although the presumption is against
retrospectivity, in certain circumstances a statute may operate
retrospectively if such intention is clearly manifested from the
language of the statute or the context in which it is enacted. The
petitioner contends that Ext.P22 is declaratory in nature. A
declaratory statute, as explained by the Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Others v. Podar Cement
Pvt. Ltd and Others [(1997) 5 SCC 482], is one that merely declares
the meaning of an existing law or removes doubts regarding the
2026:KER:26467
interpretation of a provision and therefore is often treated as
retrospective.
19. However, a reading of Ext. P22 notification does not
indicate that the amendment was introduced for the purpose of
clarifying any ambiguity in the existing law. On the contrary, the
amendment introduces a new enabling provision permitting
renewal of registration of certain Government vehicles beyond
fifteen years up to twenty years, subject to the conditions
specified therein and therefore, the contention that the
amendment is declaratory in nature cannot be accepted. That,
however, does not conclude the matter. The further question that
arises is whether the notification operates prospectively or
retrospectively. In determining this question, the intention
underlying the amendment has to be gathered from the language
of the rule as well as the context in which it was introduced.
Section 41(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that a certificate
of registration shall be valid for a period of fifteen years from the
date of issue and shall thereafter be renewable in accordance with
2026:KER:26467
the provisions of the Act. Section 41(8) provides that renewal has
to be made within the said period, ie. within 15 years. Whereas,
the provisos introduced through Ext. P22 contemplate renewal of
registration of Government vehicles even after the expiry of
fifteen years but before the lapse of twenty years from the date of
initial registration. The explanatory note appended to the
notification also indicates that the amendment was introduced
considering that many Government vehicles continue to remain
roadworthy even after completion of fifteen years and therefore
may be permitted to continue in use subject to satisfaction of the
prescribed conditions. When the language of the rule, the
statutory scheme under Section 41(7) and (8), and the object
disclosed in the Explanatory Note are read together, it becomes
evident that the amendment is intended to operate upon vehicles
which had already completed the fifteen-year threshold but not
completed twenty years and therefore, though not expressly
stated, the notification is retrospective in effect.
20. However, the provisos contained in the notification
2026:KER:26467
clearly stipulate that such extension of registration can be
granted only to vehicles which possess a valid pollution certificate
and which pass the prescribed fitness test, and that vehicles
which fail the fitness test shall be scrapped through the
Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facility or disposed of through
MSTC in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways.
21. In the present case, the materials on record clearly
establish that the vehicle in question had already been
condemned by the department and subsequently disposed of
through MSTC after following the prescribed procedure. The very
fact of condemnation signifies that the vehicle was found unfit for
further use by the department and, therefore, cannot be regarded
as a roadworthy vehicle capable of passing the statutory fitness
test. Once a vehicle is condemned and disposed of through the
scrap disposal mechanism, it ceases to retain the legal character
of a motor vehicle capable of being restored to the register of
motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act.
2026:KER:26467
Though the relief is declined to the petitioner for the
reasons stated above, it is declared that the amendment
introduced through Ext.P22 operates retrospectively. The said
amendment enables renewal of registration of government
vehicles that are completed 15 years, but not 20 years, subject to
the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including certification
of road-worthiness to the satisfaction of the competent transport
authorities.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
okb/
2026:KER:26467
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 18546 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE EXTRACT OF THE SCREENSHOT
REGARDING THE E-AUCTION CONDUCTED ON
8-11-2023
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY ORDER
ISSUED BY THE MSTC LIMITED DATED 1-12-
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1-12-2023
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE
KL-1/AQ.5563
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TO ALL
HEADS OF DEPARTMENT DATED 10-8-2023
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED
BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND
HIGHWAY DATED 16-1-2023
Exhibit P7 PHOTO COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KLK 8939
Exhibit P8 PHOTO COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
PARTICULARS OF NO.KL-11-G-4660
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION ADVERTISEMENT
CONDUCTED BY THE SECRETARY OF MALUR
GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 19.06.2024 ALONG
WITH ITS TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P10 THE VEHICLE INFORMATION PERFORMA OF
THE SAME VEHICLE
Exhibit P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION OF KL 58 B 9461
Exhibit P12 THE DETAILS OF REGISTRATION
PARTICULARS OF KL 58 B 9461
Exhibit P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION OF KLK-8939 LMV
Exhibit P14 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION OF KL-11-G-4660
Exhibit P15 DATA OF THE RC SHOWING TAX VALIDITY,
FITNESS VALIDITY, ETC
Exhibit P16 PUBLICATION PERTAINING TO THE AUCTION
EFFECTED ON 24.06.2025
Exhibit P17 THE REGISTRATION OF THIS VEHICLE WAS
ON 19.07.2010, THE COPY OBTAINED FROM
2026:KER:26467
ONLINE
Exhibit P18 COPY OF THE FITNESS VALIDITY UPTO
10.07.2030 OBTAINED FROM ONLINE
Exhibit P19 THE AUCTION NOTICE PERTAINING THE
ABOVE VEHICLE ON 09.12.2024
Exhibit P20 THE LETTER OF DIRECTOR OF LBS CENTRE,
CALICUT HANDING OVER THE VEHICLE TO
SHRI. P.M. LITHAS DATED 26.12.2024
Exhibit P21 THE PRESENT REGISTRATION VALIDITY OF
THE VEHICLE IS UPTO 23.01.2030, THE
PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE OF THE ABOVE VEHICLE DATED
10.03.2025
Exhibit P22 A COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
G.O. NO.3/2026/TRANS AND S.R.O. NO.
68/2026 DATED 20.01.2026 IS PRODUCED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P22.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO.550/2014/FIN
DATED 15/12/2014.
Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION ADVERTISEMENT
NO. W.(4) 4581/2013 OF WAYANAD
WILDLIFE WARDEN DATED 11/01/2023,
ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION.
Exhibit R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CONDEMNED ORDER OF
VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL 01
AQ 5563 - ORDER NO. W(3)-6070/2022
DATED 05-12-2022 OF WILDLIFE WARDEN,
ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION.
Exhibit R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION
ADVERTISEMENT SUBMITTED AS EXHIBIT
R1(B) PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE
ON 31ST JANUARY, 2023.
Exhibit R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. W(4)
4581/2013 DATED 16/10/23 FROM WAYANAD
WILDLIFE DIVISION OFFICE AND VEHICLE
INFORMATION PROFORMA SENT TO MSTC
LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ALONG
WITH THE TRANSLATION OF THE AFORESAID
LETTER.
Exhibit R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE HANDWRITTEN RECEIPT
IN RS.200/- STAMP PAPER SUBMITTED BY
THE AUTHORIZED PERSON OF THE
2026:KER:26467
PETITIONER, ALONG WITH ITS
TRANSLATION.
Exhibit R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. W4-4581/13
DATED 01-12-2023 ISSUED BY THE WAYANAD
WILDLIFE WARDEN.
