Disposed

Sobin Mathew, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC21 May 2024WP(C)/15041/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle owner challenged a Regional Transport Officer's notice for transfer of ownership pursuant to earlier writ judgments, contending there was no hire purchase agreement with the financier. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the RTO to conclude the proceedings within one month after issuing fresh hearing notices to all parties.

What did the court decide?

RTO directed to conclude Ext.P3 proceedings within one month after issuing fresh hearing notices to petitioner and respondents 2 and 3.

Sobin Mathew, Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15041 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SOBIN MATHEW,
AGED 52 YEARS
PULIYURUMBIL HOUSE, ELAMPALLY P.O.,
ANICKAD, KOTTAYAM., PIN – 685503

¶8

BY ADVS.
LAVARAJ M.G.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686002

¶11

2SAKTHI FINANCE LIMITED.,
REGISTERED OFFICE 62,
DR. NANJAPPA ROAD,P.B. NO.3745,
COIMBATORE., PIN - 641018
3P.A. SHAJAHAN,
AGED 65 YEARS
PARAKKAL HOUSE, P.C. KAVALA P.O.,
PAYIPAD, KOTTAYAM., PIN – 686537

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

N.V.VINAY
KRUSCH P.A(K/750/1999
SRI.BINOY DAVIS
SRI. J.RAMKUMAR
SRI. ARUN P. ANTONY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023
 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2024

¶18

The petitioner is the registered owner of a Stage Carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-05AN-7601. The vehicle did not have any endorsement as relating to finance or hire purchase.

¶19

The petitioner states that he had entered into an agreement of sale of the vehicle with one Mr.Joseph Mathew, but the same was not materialized. It was from his possession that the vehicle was seized by the 2^nd respondent. There are only certain private transaction with the 2^nd respondent Finance Company by the petitioner. There was no Hire Purchase agreement or endorsement in the RC particulars of the vehicle and the vehicle was not offered as security. There are certain disputes between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent relating to the amount payable in the private

¶20

WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

¶21

¶22

transaction and the vehicle had been repossessed in a legal manner.

¶23

The petitioner earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.34477 of 2022 and this Court directed to consider

¶24

the objections raised by the petitioner relating to the attempt on the part of the financier to get fresh RC Book. As on date no orders are passed on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.34477 of 2022. Now, the petitioner is in receipt of a notice dated 13.04.2023 which was served on 27.04.2023 personally at his residence. In the said notice, there is a reference of judgment in W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023. The 3^rd respondent herein had approached this Court for consideration of his representation for transfer of ownership of vehicle to his name. He claims that auction was conducted and he was the successful bidder.

¶25

The petitioner submits that unless and until an

¶26

enquiry is conducted as to whether the vehicle is covered with a valid Hire Purchase agreement or not, the 1^st respondent

¶27

WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

¶28

¶29

could not go ahead with the transfer proceedings, because the same itself will be illegal, if it is found that there is no finance transaction between the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent as to the vehicle. Ext.P3 notice shows that the judgment in W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023 was procured by the 3^rd respondent without issuing notice to the petitioner herein and interestingly the notice does not disclose any date on which the petitioner has to appear. Hence, the intention is only to steal a march over the petitioner's rights.

¶30

The Regional Transport Officer ought to have conducted enquiry as decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No.34477 of 2022, contends the petitioner. Hence, the entire exercise of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam in issuing notice to comply with the directions in W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023 without complying with the directions in W.P.(C) No. 34477 of 2022 is per se illegal. Hence the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notice in this writ petition.

¶31

WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023
 5

¶32

6 . Counsel for the 3^rd respondent entered

¶33

appearance and resisted the writ petition. The 3^rd respondent submitted that he is the auction purchaser. The 3^rd respondent points out that the petitioner herein had filed W.P.(C) No.34477 of 2022 directing the respondentRegional Transport Officer to consider Ext.P3 objection preferred by the petitioner against issuance of fresh Registration Certificate in the name of any Finance Company. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 28.10.2022 directing that if the 1^st respondent-Regional Transport Officer receives an application at the instance of the 2^nd respondent to change the ownership of the vehicle, the 1^st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner. An opportunity of hearing should also be given to the petitioner before passing any orders.

¶34

Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023 before this Court against blacklisting of the

¶35

¶36

WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

¶37

vehicle. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 24.03.2023 directing the 2^nd respondentRegional Transport Officer therein to take up Ext.P6 application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with notice to respondents 3 to 5. Orders were directed to be passed within six weeks.

¶38

The 3^rd respondent submitted that pursuant to the judgments of this Court, the Regional Transport Officer has issued Ext.P3 notice dated 13.04.2023, which is challenged in this writ petition. A writ petition against a notice should not be entertained, contended the counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶39

Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the 1^st respondent and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the 1^st respondent, it is submitted that in deference to the judgment of this Court, notices dated 13.04.2023 have been sent to the Finance Company, the petitioner and his

¶40

WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023
 7

¶41

wife for personal hearing. The Financier attended the personal hearing on 18.04.2023, but not the petitioner. After waiting for another seven days, notices were served to the family members of the petitioner and his wife through the Circle Officer on 27.04.2023. But the petitioner and his wife did not appear for the personal hearing.

¶42

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respective learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 1^st respondent.

¶43

It is evident from the pleadings that both the parties had approached this Court earlier raising their grievance and this Court had delivered Exts.P2 and P4 judgments. Pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.939 of 2023, the Regional Transport Officer has issued Ext.P3 notice to the petitioner. When the Regional Transport Officer is considering the matter pursuant to the directions given by

¶44

WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

¶45

¶46

this Court, the said proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance without sufficient reasons.

¶47

In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam to bring the proceedings as per Ext.P3 to its logical conclusion after giving a hearing notice afresh to the writ petitioner and respondents 2 and 3.

¶48

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent-Regional Transport Officer to bring Ext.P3 proceedings to its logical conclusion within a period of one month, after issuing notice to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) No.15041 Of 2023

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15041/2023

¶56

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶57

EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF
THE VEHICLE KL 05 AN 7601 DATED
23.8.2016.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP [C]
NO. 34477/2022 DATED 28.10.2022.
EXHIBIT P3ATRUECOPYOFTHENOTICE
NO.J6/391466/2022/K DATED 13.4.2023.
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP[C]
NO.939/2023 DATED 24.3.2023.
EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.4.2023.

¶58

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶59

`EXHIBIT R3 (A)`	`A TRUE COPY` `939/2023 FILED`	`OF WRIT PETITION NO.` `BY ME`
`EXHIBIT R3 (B)`	`A TRUE COPY` `BEFORE THE 1ST`	`APPLICATION FILED BY ME` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT R2(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 31.10.20`	`HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT` `19`
`EXHIBIT R2(B)`	`TRUE COPY O` `30.07.2022 ISS`	`F LEGAL NOTICE DATED` `UED TO THE PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT R2(C)`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED TO THE`	`NOTICE DATED 12.08.2023` `PETITIONER`

Sobin Mathew, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobin Mathew, 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

Saleesh M K Vs the State Bank of India

Mascom Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Assistant Engineer

Mariyamu, Vs Tirur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Somu P.M Vs The Manager Kerala state Co-operative Bank

P.D James, Vs District Collector

Pdmc Industries, through Its Managing Partner Bobby Isaac Mathew, Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.