Kerala High Court
Manoj Stephen vs The Branch Manager on 14 March, 2016
Author: A.M. Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 16962 of 2016 (U)
--------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
--------------------------
MANOJ STEPHEN,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.IMMANUEL STEPHEN,
HOUSE NO.13/391, MISSION COMPOUND, PUTHUPANOM P.O.,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, KERALA.
BY ADV. SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA
VADAKARA BRANCH, DHANA PLAZA, N.H.BYE PASS JUNCTION,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKKODE, PIN: 673 101,
KERALA.
2. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SHRIRAM AUTOMALL INDIA LTD.,
PAYOLLY ROAD, IRINGATH (P.O.), MANJAKULAM, MEPPAYOOR,
CALICUT,PIN: 673 523.
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
VADAKARA, PIN: 673 101.
R1 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADV. SMT.S.AMBILY
R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.P.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 16962 of 2016 (U)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/03/2016 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GATE PASS DATED 27/03/2015
VIDE NO.35984 ISSUED BY SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.
LTD. (A SISTER CONCERN OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT).
P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PAGE NO.12/31 PUBLISHED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUCTION
LOT NO.15.
P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 04/07/2015 SENT TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 23/03/2016 TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY RESPONDENT BANK TO
THE PETITIONER DATED 01.07.2016, PRODUCED AND MARKED IN
I.A.NO. 12162/2016.
P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PUC (POLLUTION UNDER CONTROL)
CERTIFICATE DATED 18..07.2016, PRODUCED AND MARKED IN
I.A.NO. 12162/2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2014 IN
C.M.P.NO. 6336/2014 IN CRIME NO. 473/2014 OF VATAKARA
POLICE STATION, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, VATAKARA.
ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 04.05.2015.
ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION
PUBLISHED BY THE AGENCY.
ANNEXURE 4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.05.2015 ADDRESSED RTO.
ANNEXURE 5: COPY OF THE REPLYTO EXT. P5, ISSUED BY THE BANK
DATED 30.03.2016.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 16962 of 2016
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court inter alia challenging Ext.P6, a letter issued by the respondent Bank, calling upon the petitioner to furnish the documents for the purpose of expediting registration process of a vehicle having temporary registration No.KL-VAV-Tem.4011.
2. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased by the petitioner in an auction conducted at the instance of the respondent Bank for an amount of Rs.4,22,000/-. However, he could not get registration of the vehicle in his name, alleging that the Bank is not taking appropriate action to ensure that the vehicle is registered in his name. This writ petition as originally filed sought for a direction to the respondent Bank to hand over the permanent registration documents of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner through public auction.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, it was W.P.(C) No. 16962 of 2016 -2- brought to the notice of this Court that the tax for permanent registration and other fee had not been remitted. Therefore, the Regional Transport Officer had called upon the Bank to take permanent registration in order to effect transfer of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. The Bank in turn by Ext.P6 letter, called upon the petitioner to expedite the registration process of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to expend any amount for registering the vehicle, whereas it is the obligation of the Bank to ensure that the vehicle is registered in the name of the petitioner.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent inter alia submitting that the vehicle was originally purchased by one Vibin Kallinandi, after obtaining credit facility from the respondent Bank. He was granted a loan of Rs.6 lakhs. He purchased the vehicle and obtained a temporary registration number. The vehicle was hypothecated to the Bank. The borrower did not pay the amount as stipulated. The vehicle was later seized by the Vatakara Police Station in W.P.(C) No. 16962 of 2016 -3- Crime No.473/2014, alleging breach of trust and cheating. The aforesaid Vibin was arrested. The Manager of the Bank approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara and submitted a claim petition. The claim petition was allowed as per order dated 30.9.2014 in C.M.P.No.6336/2014. While granting custody of the vehicle, the following conditions had been laid down:
"(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.6 lakhs with two solvent sureties each for like amount.
(2) The petitioner shall produce photograph of the vehicle and the same shall be certified by the petitioner with respect to its genuineness.
(3) The petitioner shall be at liberty to sell the vehicle through lawful process ensuring that it fetches the maximum price.
(4) The office shall prepare a punchnama of vehicle which shall be counter signed by the petitioner."
5. Pursuant to the same, the Bank obtained a valuation certificate. Petitioner himself was the valuer of the W.P.(C) No. 16962 of 2016 -4- Bank and according to him, the value of the vehicle in the present condition would be Rs.4 lakhs. It is also indicated that the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition and covered only 2525 Kms and the tax was not paid and the insurance policy was not valid. The vehicle was auctioned for the Bank through the second respondent. The conditions of the auction is produced as Annexure 3. One of the condition is that the bid price does not include any statutory tax pending and applicable RTA fee. All these costs are additionally payable by the successful bidder. On this basis, it is contended by the Bank that there is no obligation for the Bank to pay any amount and therefore, the petitioner was requested to take necessary arrangements to pay the registration fee and register the vehicle in his name. Reference is also made to item No.15 in Annexure 3, which are the details in respect of the aforesaid vehicle, which also indicates that the tax is not available, insurance is not available and the permit is not available. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is having knowledge W.P.(C) No. 16962 of 2016 -5- about the fact that the tax and registration fee of the vehicle has not been paid and the vehicle was only temporarily registered and therefore, he cannot turn around and submit that he is not liable to pay the tax.
6. Primarily this issue arises out a contract between the parties. There is no reason why this Court should interfere in the matter. However, having regard to the fact that the Regional Transport Officer is made a party for having not registered the vehicle in the name of the petitioner, this writ petition was admitted. In fact, this Court has summoned the Regional Transport Officer at one point of time and clarified the position. It is mentioned that unless the fresh registration is taken after paying the required tax and registration fee, the transfer cannot be effected. There cannot be any dispute about the aforesaid factual situation.
7. Despite that since this matter was pending for quite some time, it would be appropriate to have a finality to the issue rather than relegating the parties to a civil suit, though W.P.(C) No. 16962 of 2016 -6- normally this Court will not interfere in such contractual matters. In Annexure 3, it is clearly indicated that the bid price does not include any statutory tax pending and applicable RTA fee. All these costs are additionally payable by the successful bidder. This being the terms of tender, petitioner cannot contend otherwise.
Under such circumstances, if the petitioner wants registration of the vehicle, it is his obligation to effect any such payment. Ext.P6 therefore cannot be set aside as contended. I do not find any merits in the contentions raised in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Scl/28.09.2016