Dismissed

Aboobacker v. the Registering Authority

Kerala HC4 Apr 2008WP(C)/2841/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the Motor Vehicles Inspector to re-verify the chassis length of a vehicle and restore the registration application if no illegal extension was found, dismissing the writ petition with process directed.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to re-verify chassis length and place matter before 1st respondent for action if no extension found within two weeks.

Aboobacker Vs the Registering Authority — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 2841 of 2008(L)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

ABOOBACKER K.M., S/O. MAMMU KULSU, ULLATTIL HOUSE, KAYAL MADATHIL, ANANDAVOOR P.O., THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SOMAN SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, TIRUR.

¶14

2. THE MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, TIRUR.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WPC.NO.2841/2008 L

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1: COPY OF FORM 21, SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEALER.

¶22

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE BODY BUILDER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE TEMP.REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE.

¶24

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C) 2841 of 2008

Dated: APRIL 4, 2008

JUDGMENT

The application for registration of a vehicle has been returned with an endorsement that the chassis has been extended by 55 cms. from the approved pattern. Ext.P4 contains the certificate of inspection by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner asserts before this court that this is a factual mistake and that therefore the matter needs to be re-examined.

¶33

If, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a

¶34

mistake has happened, it is a factual matter to be examined and if there is a mistake, that needs to be corrected.

¶35

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 2^nd respondent shall, on production of a copy of this judgment, verify once again whether the length of the chassis (No.357251KS2831777) and, if it is found that there is no extension of the approved length as noticed in Ext.P4, the matter will be placed before the 1^st respondent for further action on the

WP(C) 2841/08

Page numbers

application.

The 2^nd respondent shall complete the process within two

¶40

weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶43

mt/-

Aboobacker v. the Registering Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aboobacker v. the Registering Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

N.Anil Kumar Vs State

Shinekumar Vs Authorised Officer (Chief Manager)

E.v.Francis Vs P.G.Baby

A.C.Jose Vs Rta, Alappuzha & Ors.

S.Girija Vs the General Manager, Allahabad Bank and