Partly allowed

Abdul Majeed v. the Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC28 Jan 2016WP(C)/1121/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court in WP(C).No.1121 of 2016 directed the Regional Transport Officer to consider and pass orders on the petitioner’s objection within three weeks, suspending coercive steps. The case involved a vehicle registration dispute.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4 objection within three weeks; coercive steps kept in abeyance.

Abdul Majeed Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/8TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1121 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

ABDUL MAJEED, PENGATT HOUSE, PANDIKKAL BAZAR, MALAPPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TAXATION OFFICER, KOZHIKODE- 671 001.

¶11

2. LATHEEF,

¶12

S/O.ABOOBACKER, ZEENATH MANZIL HOUSE, VYDYARANGADI P.O, KOZHIKODE 671 001.

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RENJITH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 1121 of 2016 (M)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE KL-10/L-3440.

¶20

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 13/10/2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.T.A PALAKKAD HELD ON 10/02/2012.

¶22

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P5: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.31/1989.

¶24

P6: TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28/12/2011.

¶25

P7: TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 14/03/2012.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No.1121 of 2016

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 28^th day of January 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The limited prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is for a direction to the 1^st respondent, before whom he had filed Ext.P4 objection, to consider and pass orders in the same, expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader of the respondents.

¶39

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P4 objection, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7, shall be kept in abeyance, till such time as orders are passed by the 1^st respondent as directed, and communicated to the petitioner.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶42

sm/

Abdul Majeed v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Majeed v. the 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

Afsal B Vs the Authorised Officer

K.G.Devakiamma Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Haseena Vs Bank of India

Antony V.K. Vs State Bank of Travancore

Rukiya U.K. Vs the State Bank of India

Mr.Binu Thomas Vs the State of Kerala