Disposed

M/S Shriram Tranaport Finance Company Ltd. v. Thankachan Thomas

Kerala HC12 Dec 2012RP/1157/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a review petition filed by a vehicle financier, the Kerala High Court directed the RTA Secretary to consider pending permit applications after providing an opportunity of hearing to the intermediary financier, original applicant, and the vehicle owner, who all had rival interests in the repossessed vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary, RTA Idukki to pass orders on pending renewal and temporary permit applications after hearing the review petitioner, first respondent, and the vehicle owner.

M/S Shriram Tranaport Finance Company Ltd. Vs… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/21ST AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 1157 of 2012 (F)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.26251/2012 DATED 12-11-2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S):3RD PARTY:

¶8

M/S. SHRIRAM TRANAPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, CAPITOL TOWERS BUILDING, CHENNAMATTOM JUNCTION, KATTAPPANA REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, RAJU THOMAS, CONSULTANT - LEGAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR

¶10

SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1:

¶12

1. THANKACHAN THOMAS, VELUTHEDATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAJAKAD PO, IDUKKI - 685 566.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI - 685 602.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

RP.NO.1157/2012

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE LOAN CUM HYPOTHECATION AGREEMENT DTD.30/10/2004 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE FORM G FROM 1/04/2009 TO 3006/2009 BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI.

¶22

ANNEX.A3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/10/2012 IN MVAA NO.344/2012 OF STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J

¶28

R.P.No.1157 OF 2012 IN W.P.(C) No. 26251/2012

¶29

Dated this the 12^th day of December 2012

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 12.11.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 26251/2012. Petitioner was not a party in the writ petition. The first respondent has filed the writ petition seeking a direction directing the Secretary, RTA Idukki to consider his application for renewal of permit on the route Chemmanar-Thoudupuzha notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle intended to be used as he is in legal possession of the vehicle KL-6-8687 and for a further direction to consider Ext.P8 application for temporary permit on the said route.

¶32

This Court by judgment dated 12.11.12 disposed of the writ petition directing the Secretary, RTA Idukki to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application for renewal of permit within a period of one month and Ext.P8 application for temporary permit within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The review petitioner is the financier in respect of the stage carriage vehicle KL -6C 4539. The review petitioner submits that a hypothication agreement was entered into between the first respondent and review petitioner in respect of the purchase of the vehicle as per Annexure-A1 agreement dated

¶33

R.P.No.1157/2012

¶34

¶35

30.10.2004. It is submitted that regular permit was issued to operate on the route Chemmanar-Thodupuzha. The permit was valid till 4.5.2010. The permit holder could not operate the said route using the said vehicle due to repossession of the vehicle by the review petitioner in 2009.

¶36

Petitioner submits that the first respondent who is not in possession of the vehicle applied for temporary permit substituting another vehicle bearing registration No. KL-6 F 8687. The owner of bus No.KL5 S 6951 also had filed an application for temporary permit. Since both of them applied for temporary permit, the Secretary, RTA did not consider the applications. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal after hearing the petitioner and the first respondent directed the Secretary, RTA to consider the rival applications after hearing the Review petitioner as well as the first respondent. It is contended that suppressing the said order of the Tribunal and without impleading the review petitioner, who is the financier in respect of the vehicle, Writ Petition ©. No.26251/12 was filed by the first respondent and the same was disposed of by judgment dated 12.11.12.

¶37

The contention raised in the review petition is that the application for temporary permit preferred on behalf of the vehicle KL-6C 4539 which was repossessed by the financier is liable to be rejected as the first respondent is deprived of the possession of the old vehicle by repossession by the review petitioner. In such circumstances, the financier approached this Court seeking the intervention of this Court contending that the review petitioner is also entitled to be heard before any decision is taken on Exts.P5 and P8 applications.

¶38

R.P.No.1157/2012

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition, the Secretary, RTA Idukki had issued a communication informing the petitioner that his application for temporary permit and the applications for renewal and replacement are proposed to be considered in the meeting scheduled to be held on 13.12.2012. The first respondent produced the said communication marked as Ext.R1(a).

¶41

In the circumstances, the review petition is disposed of directing the Secretary, RTA Idukki to pass appropriate orders on the applications marked as Exts.P5 and P8 in the writ petition after affording an opportunity of being heard to the review petitioner, first respondent and the owner of the stage carriage vehicle KL 5S 6951.

¶42

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶43

al/-

M/S Shriram Tranaport Finance Company Ltd. v. Thankachan Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shriram Tranaport Finance Company Ltd. v. Thankachan Thomas

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

Shyam Vs Regional Transport Authority

Kerala Independent Silk Employees Union Vs State of Kerala

Sri.Manoj Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Joy Sebastian Vs the Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 556

C.M.Alice Vs the Peravoor Co-Operative Housing Buildi

Purushothaman Nair Vs Secretary, Rta