Disposed

Abhilash Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Feb 2016WP(C)/6553/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerning transfer of vehicle ownership was disposed of. The bench directed the second respondent Transport Office to consider a pending representation from the petitioners with notice to all parties. The court directed parties to produce missing forms within a month to enable transfer completion.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider Ext. P5 with notice to petitioners and the fourth respondent to produce deficit documents (Form 29, 30) within one month to complete transfer. Petition dispo

Abhilash Raveendran Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/10TH PHALGUNA, 19372

¶5

WP(C).No. 6553 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. ABHILASH RAVEENDRAN, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 244/6 ABHILASH BHAVAN, VELOOR, VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶8

2. M/S.POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD., (MARUTI TRUE VALUE) SH MOUNT PO, MC ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686006, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR SRI.MANU TOM THOMAS SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SRI.RILGIN V.GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶12

2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI 685584

¶13

3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, VAIKOM MUNICIPAL BUILDING, HOSPITAL ROAD, VAIKOM KOTTAYAM 686141

¶14

4. M.N. ABDUL JAFFER

¶15

S/O.NAVOOR HAGI, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, KARIKODE VILLAGE THODUPUZHA, PINCODE 685585

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA K.A.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 6553 of 2016 (T)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION LETTER DATED 06.07.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶22

P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 03.08.2007 EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶23

P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION DETAILS OF MARUTHI ESTEEM VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL.36-95 OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶24

P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.05.2014 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶25

P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.07.2015 ALONG WITH THE FORM NO.29 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶26

P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT

¶27

P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. MVS.C1/1251/2915KV DATED 20.07.2015 ISSUED B THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 6553 OF 2016

¶34

Dated this the 29^th day of February, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The maruthi car belonging to the first petitioner was allegedly sold to the second petitioner. The petitioners lament that the transfer has not been endorsed in the certificate of registration of the vehicle as yet. Ext. P5 representation put in by the first petitioner in this regard is pending consideration of the second respondent.

¶37

I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation with notice to both the petitioners. The fourth respondent who is a subsequent assignee from the second petitioner shall also be put on notice. The parties shall be afforded an opportunity to produce any documents in deficit. It is stated that Form 29 and Form 30 are yet to be produced by the parties. The petitioners as well as the fourth respondent are at liberty to produce the necessary

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 6553 OF 2016 2

¶39

documents to enable the second respondent to complete the transfer. The exercise shall be done within a period of one

¶40

month from today.

¶41

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶42

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶43

DCS

Abhilash Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilash Raveendran v. State of Kerala

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

S.Thankavelu Vs Smt.Sreevally

N.v.Mathew Roy Wilfred Vs Antony Chacko

Sini Raj M.T Vs the State of Kerala

P.T.Sulfikar Vs K.Premanandan

Rasak Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Yunas M. Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority