Allowed

Syed Jabeer Hussain (Muslim) v. The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Telangana HC22 Mar 2011WP/33666/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed a writ petition praying to quash the dismissal of an application for vehicle registration. The petitioner had bought the vehicle at a Forest Department auction but faced rejection due to discrepancy between numbers. Reliance placed on a precedent where the authority was directed to inspect the vehicle first.

What did the court decide?

Registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner and transfer of ownership forthwith; no costs awarded.

Syed Jabeer Hussain (Muslim) Vs The Deputy Transport… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.33666 OF 2010

¶5

DATED:22.03.2011

¶6

Between: Syed Jabeer Hussain … Petitioner And The Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Nizamabad and others … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.33666 OF 2010

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dt.25.9.2010 passed by the first respondent whereby the application of the petitioner, for effecting transfer of ownership of the vehicle and effecting reassignment of registration mark of the vehicle bearing R. No.MH 34M 0827 purchased by the petitioner in a public auction, was dismissed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the aforementioned vehicle in a public auction. The auction was conducted by the Forest Department and now the first respondent could not have refused registration on the ground that the chassis and engine numbers of the vehicle do not tally with the original registration mark. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in B. Rama Krishna Reddy v. Dy. Transport Commissioner, Kadapa^[1] wherein it was held as under:

¶12

“In the instant case, the registering authority has rejected the application of the writ petitioner right at the threshold without subjecting the vehicle in question to check or inspection for its roadworthiness. I, therefore, direct the 1^st respondent to forthwith proceed to check and inspect the vehicle produced by the writ petitioner bearing Registration No.T.N.09-AT-8474 and in case it is found to be roadworthy, register the same in the name of the 2^nd respondent in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 57 of the Rules at the first instance and thereafter record transfer of ownership in favour of the writ petitioner, in accordance with law. Let this exercise be completed within a maximum period of thirty days from today.”

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle is

¶14

absolutely roadworthy and fit for plying on the roads and hence the registration could not have been refused. He further submits that from the date of purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner, the registration number as well as the chassis have been remained same as on the date of auction by the Forest Department.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforementioned legal position.

¶16

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to register the aforementioned vehicle in the name of the petitioner forthwith. No costs.

¶17

______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 22.3.2011 bnr Note: C.C. in one week. (B.O) bnr

¶18

[1] 2011 (1) ALD 747

Syed Jabeer Hussain (Muslim) v. The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Jabeer Hussain (Muslim) v. The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. B. Subbamma Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Gudise Ganganna, Vs The Thasildar

Smt. Valegada Paramma Vs The Goverment of Andhra Pradesh

Dodda Dhanalaxmi Vs TheDistrict Registrar, Stamps and Registration

Tadlapalli Buchi Rajaiah Vs The Government of A.P.

Vimala Bai Tatiya Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate