Disposed

M/S.Canara Bank Ltd. v. Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC1 Mar 2018WP(C)/4548/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner Bank sought direction for the respondent RTO to decide on its pending application for a fresh registration certificate regarding a vehicle sold to the second respondent. The court directed the RTO to dispose of the application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the Ext.P3 application within one month with notice to all parties.

M/S.Canara Bank Ltd. Vs Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 4548 of 2018 ----------------------

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

M/S.CANARA BANK LTD, KOLLAM MAIN BRANCH, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM-691006, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MR.VARUN SURESH. BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SMT.JINU ANTONY

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001.

¶10

2. MR.RAJESHKUMAR WILFRED, S/O.WILFRED, VELICHAM NAGAR, -B, QSS COLONY, PALLITHOTTAM P.O., KOLLAM-691006.

¶11

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT C.S.SHEEJA R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.V.

¶14

WP(C).No. 4548 of 2018 (P)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2016 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM IN CONNECTION WITH M.C.NO.503/2016.
EXHIBIT P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CONNECTION WITH M.C.NO.503/2016 BEFORE THE CJM COURT, KOLLAM ON 20/08/2016.
EXHIBIT P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10/01/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR ISSUANCE OF FRESH RC U/S 51(5).
EXHIBIT P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23/01/2018 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE RTO, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/02/2018 SENT BY THE RTO, MUVATTUPUZHA ALONG WITH THE REPORT DATED 31/01/2018 OF THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR.

¶18

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶19

/TRUE COPY/

¶20

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 5.3.2017

¶21

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶22

W.P.(C).No.4548 of 2018

¶23

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2018

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The 2^nd respondent purchased a Mahindra XYLO vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-02/AR-6225 availing financial assistance from the petitioner Bank, under a hypothecation agreement. On account of the default committed by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in M.C.No.503 2016, possession of the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application under subsection (5) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the issuance of a fresh registration certificate. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 application is still pending consideration before the 1^st respondent.

¶26

On 09.02.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1^st respondent. This Court has issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

W.P.(C)No.4548 of 2018

¶29

:-2-:

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since Ext.P3 application is now pending consideration before the 1^st respondent, the said respondent may be directed to take appropriate decision thereon, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 2^nd respondent.

¶31

The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit that despite the notice issued pursuant to Ext.P3 application, the petitioner did not turn up. However, the 2^nd respondent entered appearance on 29.01.2018 and filed objection.

¶32

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that, on receipt of notice, the 2^nd respondent entered appearance before the 1^st respondent on 29.01.2018 and he has also filed his objection.

¶33

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for issuance of fresh registration certificate in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-02/AR-6225, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 2^nd respondent. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶34

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 and it is for the

¶35

W.P.(C)No.4548 of 2018

¶36

:-3-:

¶37

1^st respondent to take appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law.

¶38

All legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are left open to be raised before the 1^st respondent at appropriate stage.

¶39

Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶40

AV/2/3

M/S.Canara Bank Ltd. v. Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Canara Bank Ltd. v. Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Joseph Vs the Thodupuzha Co-Operaive Primary Agricultural & Rural Development Bank LTD.NO.4388

Jessan Vs Sepcial Sale Officer, Thrissur Sahakarana Karshika Grama Vikasan Bank

Santhosh.K.v Vs Malabar Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (Milma)

Anil Kumar P.P Vs the Kannur Town Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. C-844

Anup Kumar Vs the Excise Commissioner

Jibin Baby Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,Idukki