Disposed

Jilumol Mariet Thomas v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer, (Registering Authority)

Kerala HC21 Oct 2020WP(C)/18846/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Transport Officer to register a specially modified car of a physically challenged petitioner after she removes all alterations and submits requisite documents. The Bank respondent was restrained from coercive action regarding the registration delay.

What did the court decide?

Directions to produce vehicle, remove alterations, and effect registration within three weeks; restraint on Bank from coercive action.

Jilumol Mariet Thomas Vs the Joint Regional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 29TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.18846 OF 2020(E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JILUMOL MARIET THOMAS, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.THOMAS, NELLANIKATTU HOUSE, EZHUMUTTAM P.O., KARIMANNOR, THODUPUZHA-685605.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.SHINE VARGHESE SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (REGISTERING AUTHORITY), SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685584.

¶11

2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶12

3 M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

4 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶14

R4 BY ADV. MR.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC SRI.BIMAL K. NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.18846 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner is a physically challenged lady, who was born with no arms. She is brilliant in all respects and is presently working as a Graphic Designer. Being a person who is not prepared to be cowed down by the disability that befell on her, she decided to learn driving to gain more independence for herself. When her application for obtaining Learner’s licence was rejected, she approached this Court and Ext.P2 judgment was rendered by which she was asked to present herself before the 1st respondent with a suitable vehicle for consideration of her application for Learner’s licence. In order to pursue her passion, she purchased a Maruti Celerio VXI Automatic Car after availing a loan. The vehicle was temporarily registered and later, the same was entrusted with an authorised workshop to make necessary alterations. However, her efforts to get the vehicle registered was rejected by the 1st respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred W.P.(C) No.33486/2018, which is pending.

¶20

The petitioner contends that the vehicle purchased by her is remaining idle for the past two years. It is turning into a great financial burden for her. She has no one to turn to and left with no alternative, she has decided to restore the car to its original stage after removing the entire

¶21

WP(C).No.18846 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

alterations. Her prayer in this writ petition is to issue necessary directions to the 1st respondent to effect permanent registration of the vehicle made mention of in Ext.P5 as an ordinary passenger car and also for a further direction to the 3rd respondent to refrain from initiating any coercive action against the petitioner on account of the delay in producing the registration certificate.

¶24

I have heard Sri. G. Hariharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned Government Pleader and Sri. Jayesh Mohan Kumar, who appeared for the Bank.

¶25

On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has not submitted any application for registration of the vehicle as an ordinary passenger car till date. According to the learned Government Pleader, the vehicle will have to be tested to ascertain as to whether it meets with pollution standards, safety standards of components and roadworthiness. The vehicle must have valid insurance and pollution Control certificate and the petitioner may have to remit the compounding fee as well as the late fee. An affidavit will have to be submitted stating that the vehicle has not met with an accident. If everything is in order, the inspection can be conducted at Vengalloor, MangattuKavala Bye-Pass on any near date.

¶26

Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶27

submitted that it is not because of any fault of the petitioner that the vehicle was not registered. According to the learned counsel though there is no

¶28

WP(C).No.18846 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

justification on the part of the 1st respondent in insisting upon the petitioner to pay late fees and compounding fees, in order to avoid any further delay, she shall remit the payment.

¶31

In view of the facts and the submissions made across the bar, I direct the petitioner to produce the vehicle after removing all alterations and in tune with the requirements made mention of in paragraph No. 4 above. If the vehicle is produced as directed above with all requisite records, the 1st respondent shall take appropriate steps to inspect the vehicle and ascertain its roadworthiness as per procedure and if the vehicle is found fit for registration as an ordinary passenger car, the same shall be carried out within a period of three weeks. The 3rd respondent shall refrain from initiating any coercive action against the petitioner for the delay in producing the registration certificate of the vehicle.

¶32

This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

DSV

¶37

WP(C).No.18846 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.811/17 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, THODUPUZHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.(C) NO.23194/2018 DATED 23.07.2018.

¶43

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 04.08.2018 ISSUED BY M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, THODUPUZHA BRANCH IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING SANCTION OF A LOAN OF RS.4,25,000/-.

¶44

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 04.09.2018 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PURCHASE OF A BRAND NEW CELERIO AUTOMATIC CAR FROM M/S.SAI SERVICE PVT.LTD.

¶45

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE KL-07 CW-TEMP-7565 BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ON 06.09.2018.

¶46

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT 03.10.2018 OF FEE FOR ALTERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (PERMISSION).

¶47

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RETURNING THE PAPERS FOR REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P5.

¶48

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE DETAILS RELATING TO W.P.(C) NO.33486/2018.

¶49

WP(C).No.18846 OF 2020

¶50

¶51

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶52

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF POLICY SCHEDULE ISSUED BY M/S.MARUTI INSURANCE BROKING PVT.LTD IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P5.

¶53

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MONTH WISE SUMMARY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶54

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶55

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

¶56

/TRUE COPY/

¶57

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jilumol Mariet Thomas v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer, (Registering Authority)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jilumol Mariet Thomas v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer, (Registering Authority)

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

Akhila Lal Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Subramanian Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Khaja Sharafudheen Vs the District Collector

Ansar, Vs the District Collector

Indus Towers Limited Vs Shiji

The Director Vs the Regional Transport Officer