Disposed

Hemamalini v. Sub Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC10 Oct 2011WP(C)/24296/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ to register a vehicle with a specific number which was allotted to another person the previous day. The Court permitted the petitioner to apply for a fresh registration number, set off the deposited amount, and dispose of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to apply for a fresh registration number; deposited amount set off against the new fee; petition disposed of.

Hemamalini Vs Sub Regional Transport Officer — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2011/18TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 24296 of 2011 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

HEMAMALINI.V.V,

¶8

W/O.JAYAN, K.S.APARTMENTS, MANCHIRA ROAD P.O.GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, GURUVAYUR, PIN-680 101.

¶12

2. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, GURUVAYUR PIN-680 101.

¶13

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUSHEELA.R.BHAT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-10-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶17

W.P(C).NO.24296 OF 2011

¶18

Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2011.

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶21

following prayers:

¶22

“i. to call for the records relating to Ext.P8 order dated 29.8.2011;

¶23

ii. to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P8 order;

¶24

Iii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to immediately register the vehicle of the petitioner with No.KL-46-E-6003;

¶25

iv. to declare that the petitioner is entitled for her vehicle to be registered with No.KL-46-E6003.”

¶26

When the matter came up for consideration before

¶27

this Court on 6.9.2011, the following interim order was passed:

¶28

“Admit. Issue notice to respondents 1 and 2 by special messenger at the petitioner's expense. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the third respondent.

¶29

Post on 7.9.2011 in the admissions list. Until further orders, the registration marks “KL-46-E6003 shall not be allotted to any other vehicles”.

¶30

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the

¶31

respondents submits that the above registration number

¶32

W.P(C).NO.24296 OF 2011 2

¶33

happened to be allotted to somebody else on the previous day, that is on 5.9.2011 and hence the interim order could not be given effect to. The learned Government Pleader also concedes that the last date for production of the vehicle in tune with the relevant provisions of law happened to be a Sunday and that the petitioner could have produced the vehicle only on the next day.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fault or lapse, if any, is not be attributed to the petitioner and that the petitioner will be satisfied, if she is permitted to apply for a 'fresh number' of her choice and the amount already in deposit is set off in respect of the amount to be paid for the proposed registration number as aforesaid. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner would forgo all her claims with respect to the number 'KL-46-E-6003' so as to have the above relief.

¶35

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to apply for a fresh number of her choice in tune with the relevant provisions of law. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and necessary relief shall be extended to her immediately. The

¶36

¶37

W.P(C).NO.24296 OF 2011

¶38

amount lying in deposit while applying for registration No. KL-46-E-6003, shall be set off against the fee payable by the petitioner in respect of the proposed number as aforesaid. Deficit, if any, shall be satisfied by the petitioner and excess, if any, shall be refunded to her forthwith.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶40

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶41

JUDGE.

¶42

¶43

W.P(C).NO.24296 OF 2011 4

Hemamalini v. Sub Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemamalini v. Sub Regional Transport Officer

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

Jose Thomas M. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.K.Ravindran Vs State of Kerala

Muralidharan Vs the National Highway Authority of India

Valsamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala

E.J.Ammini Vs Trichur Corporation

Simi S. Vs State of Kerala