Kerala High Court
K.P. Musthafa vs The State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2014
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY,THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2014/16TH ASHADHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 5648 of 2014 (E)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
------------------
K.P. MUSTHAFA,
S/O.AYAMAD, KARUMBA PANCHALIL,
NOW RESIDING AT THACHILEDATH HOUSE,
MUTTANCHERY P.O. NARIKKUNI VIA, KOZHIKODE
BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR TRANSPORT,
TRIVANDRUM PIN-695001
2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
KODUVALLY P.O., KOZHIKODE DIST, PIN-673572
3. M/S.KVR MOTORS, REP BY PROPRIETOR,
CHAKORATHUKULAM, NADAKKAVU P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DIST, PIN-673005
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S.INDUSIND BANK LTD,
KODUVALLY P O, KOZHIKODE DIST- PIN-673572
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUNITH AVINOD
R4 BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA
SRI.M.S.KALESH
SMT.A.V.PRIYA
SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
SMT.R.BINDU
SRI.SANIL KUNJACHAN
SMT.M.K.LEELAKUMARI
SRI.JOHNSON JOSE PANJIKKARAN
SRI.K.KURIAN KOSHY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
BP
WP(C).No. 5648 of 2014 (E)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1:- A TRUE COPY OF RETAIL INVOICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
TD 26/7/2013
P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE TMPORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE KL 11 AT,
TEMP 7911 ISSUED BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE
DTD 27/7/2013
P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DTD 25/1/2014
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
BP
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.5648 of 2014-E
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had purchased a motor bike, a Bajaj Pulsar 150-DTS-I as per Exhibit P1 invoice. For the purpose of purchasing the vehicle, the petitioner had availed a hire purchase loan from the 4th respondent. The said transaction was endorsed on the Temporary Registration Certificate also, which is Exhibit P2. Later on, the petitioner cleared the entire amount payable to the 4th respondent and applied for the issue of a Registration Certificate, producing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the 4th respondent also. Accordingly, the petitioner was allotted with the Registration No.KL-57 H 2227. He complains that the Registration Certificate has not been issued to him so far. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the issue of a Registration Certificate.
2. I.A.No.4807 of 2014 has been filed by the 4th -:2:- W.P.(C) No.5648 of 2014-E respondent praying that the said respondent may be deleted from the party array of this writ petition. According to the Deputy Manager (Legal) of the 4th respondent who has sworn to the affidavit, the petitioner had availed financial assistance from the bank for purchasing his vehicle. However, he has paid the entire dues on 23.10.2013 and the hire purchase transaction between the petitioner and the 4th respondent was closed. A true copy of the statement of accounts maintained by the 4th respondent has been produced as Annexure 1. Since the 4th respondent has nothing to do with the allegations contained in the writ petition, they have sought for their removal from the party array.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. According to the second respondent, the petitioner had applied for the registration of his vehicle. Accordingly, Regn.No.KL 57 H 2227 was also allotted to him. However, during the course of scrutiny of the -:3:- W.P.(C) No.5648 of 2014-E application submitted, the second respondent noticed that, the sale Certificate issued by M/s KVR Motors, Kozhikode in Form 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 showed evidence of tampering. On verification of the on-line data received from the dealer, it was detected that, the details of hypothecation showing that the petitioner had availed a loan from the 4th respondent were not endorsed on the application form submitted under Form 20. According to the second respondent, the endorsement regarding the hypothecation, that was there in the Certificate of Temporary Registration, did not find a place in the application for registration submitted by the petitioner. On the basis of above discrepancies that were detected, Crime No.478 of 2013 was registered by the Station House Officer, Koduvally alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the person in charge of the authorised centre, M/s KVR Motors, the third respondent herein. The investigation is completed and a -:4:- W.P.(C) No.5648 of 2014-E final report has been laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thamarassery on 25.05.2014. For the proper conduct of the prosecution case, it is contended by the second respondent that, the documents tampered with are necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be issued with a Registration Certificate.
3. Heard. Though the petitioner had availed financial assistance from the 4th respondent for purchase of the vehicle, according to the 4th respondent, the entire amount has been paid off by the petitioner and the transaction itself has been closed. Therefore, the endorsement that had been made on the temporary Certificate of Registration need not be made in the permanent Certificate of Registration of the petitioner's vehicle. This is for the reason that, the entire transaction has been closed. A perusal of the statements made by the second respondent shows that, the allegations relate to tampering with the endorsements regarding the -:5:- W.P.(C) No.5648 of 2014-E hypothecation agreement made in the Temporary Certificate of Registration. The investigation into the complaint has not revealed any complicity on the part of the petitioner. A case has been registered against the person in charge of the authorised centre of the third respondent. Therefore, the document that is necessary to evidence the tampering is only the Temporary Certificate of Registration. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been issued with a Permanent Certificate of Registration yet. For the proper conduct of the criminal case that has been charged, only the Certificate of Temporary registration is necessary to be retained by the authorities.
4. The above being the position, there is absolutely no justification for denying to the petitioner the Permanent Certificate of Registration that he has sought for from the second respondent. Admittedly, no tampering is alleged in respect of the Permanent Registration Certificate for the simple reason that no such Certificate has been issued to -:6:- W.P.(C) No.5648 of 2014-E the petitioner. Since the hypothecation transaction has already been closed, it is not necessary to make any endorsement regarding the same in the Permanent Certificate of Registration that is to be issued to the petitioner.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to register the petitioner's vehicle covered by Exhibit P2 retail invoice and to issue a Permanent Registration Certificate to him, within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj