Kerala High Court
Jayakumar C vs The Regional Transport Officer on 5 December, 2019
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(C).No.27744 OF 2019(P)
PETITIONER:
JAYAKUMAR C.
RAVINDRA VILASOM,
NELLETTIL P.O, POTHAKULAM,
KOLLAM-691 302.
BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
ANANDAVALLESWARAM, KOLLAM-691 013
2 SHEEJA V.S,
DEVADAS MANDIRAM, KONNAYIL, PARAVUR P.O,
KOLLAM-691 301
3 BABULAL.R,
S/O. RAJENDRABABU, BABU CHAVAN, POZHIKKARA,
PARAVUR P.O, KOLLAM-691 301
R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
R2-R3 BY ADV. SMT.G.CHITRA
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SHEEJA C S, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.27744/2019 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of December 2019 The petitioner was operating in a defaulted vacancy on the route Kodimoottil Temple-Kollam operated by the 2 nd respondent. The respondents 2 and 3 entered into an agreement whereby a new model vehicle was given to the 2nd respondent on lease. The petitioner has a case that the 3rd respondent, Sri.Babulal, has no ownership of the vehicle and the vehicle belongs to one Sri.Santhosh. Based on the lease agreement, the 2nd respondent sought replacement of the vehicle. That was allowed by Ext.P6. Pointing out the irregularities in the endorsement by allowing replacement, the petitioner approached this Court.
2. The petitioner points out two irregularities; i) before the vehicle was being registered, Ext.P3 authorization was given furnishing the details of the vehicle and ii) Sri.Babulal has no ownership of the vehicle. The petitioner is only an operator with temporary permit. Essentially, the petitioner is questioning the proceedings related to replacement of the vehicle in which respondents 2 and 3 alone are involved. The petitioner has no manner of right to question the W.P.(C) No.27744/2019 3 transaction between respondents 2 and 3. The replacement is effected based on the agreement between respondents 2 and 3. If Sri.Santhosh is having ownership, it is for the said Santhosh to question such transaction. In regard to the authorization given also, it may look it is a predated one.
3. Anyway, these are all forming part of a bilateral transaction between respondents 2 and 3 in which a third party has no right. It is to be noted the 2nd respondent is the holder of regular permit. She could not operate because of the fact that the vehicle attained the age of 15 years. It is thereafter she sought replacement with the vehicle belongs to the 3rd respondent.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has no right to question the procedure adopted for replacement.
With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp W.P.(C) No.27744/2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 28.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 22.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION DATED 23.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION STATUS IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE KL-02/BK 0145 REGISTERED ON 8.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 17.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESURRECTED PERMIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY ILLEGAL METHOD.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION DATED 20.9.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 17.8.2019.
True Copy P.S to Judge smp