Disposed

The Director v. the Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC21 Oct 2020WP(C)/21227/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit regarding the truthfulness of assertions in his temporary vehicle registration application. Upon filing, the authorities must consider the request and pass appropriate orders within a week.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file affidavit; authority to consider request and pass orders within one week if affidavit filed.

The Director Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Motor Accident Claims | 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.21227 OF 2020(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE DIRECTOR SWISS TIME HOUSE, RETAIL PVT. LTD., GROUND FLOOR, SHOP NO.5, PROVIDENCE MALL, NO.7 VENKATA SUBHA REDDIAR SALAI, WARD NO.F, BLOCK NO.1, PONDICHERRY-605001.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ERNAKULAM, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682030.

¶11

2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶12

3 NATIONAL INFORMATCIS CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL, CDAC BUILDING, KELTRON COMPOUND, MANAVEEYAM ROAD, NANDAVANAM, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶13

SRI K.P HARISH SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

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

¶15

WP(C).No.21227 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner purchased a Lexus ES300H (Hybrid) Luxury Car from M/s.Nippon Motor Corp. (P) Ltd., Kalamassery, as per Ext.P1 sale certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that he has a place of business at Pondicherry and the vehicle is intended to be registered there. In the said circumstances, he submitted statutory applications along with requisite fees before the 1st respondent and sought for temporary registration of the vehicle before the 1st respondent, who is the concerned Registering Authority. His grievance is that the 1st respondent is refusing to issue a temporary permit for the purpose of registration, though they have accepted the fees as is evident from Exhibit-P3. Being aggrieved by the delay, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions.

¶19

On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that notice was issued to the registering authority at Pondicherry to verify the address and other details mentioned by the petitioner in his application. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is yet to receive the said information. It is further submitted that if the petitioner approaches the 1st respondent and files an affidavit swearing the truthfulness of the assertions made in the application for issuance of temporary permit as provided under the proviso to Rule 4(12) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the same can be

¶20

WP(C).No.21227 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

considered and appropriate orders can be passed.

¶23

Sri.Prasad Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he shall file an affidavit as suggested by the learned Government Pleader within a period of one week from today.

¶24

If such an affidavit is filed, the request made by the petitioner shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law within a further period of one week.

¶25

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

DSV

¶30

WP(C).No.21227 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FORM 21.

¶35

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE DATED 30.9.2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT FOR TEMPORARY REGISTRATION DATED 30.9.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DATED 30.9.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT DATED 28.6.2018.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶37

NIL

The Director v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director 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

Akhila Lal Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Subramanian Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Khaja Sharafudheen Vs the District Collector

Ansar, Vs the District Collector

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

Indus Towers Limited Vs Shiji