Karnataka High Court
Kalusingh S/O. Narayansingh Rajput, vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAL
WRIT PETITION NO.63902/2012(GM-Res)
BETWEEN:
1. Kalusingh,
S/o.Narayansingh Rajput,
Age: 32 years, Occ:Business,
R/o.Jawahar Road, Hospet,
Dist:Bellary.
2. The Canara Bank,
Branch: Hampi,
Hospet Taluk,
Dist: Bellary,
Reptd. by its Manager. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar, Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Reptd. by its Secretary,
Department of Road and
Transport, Bengaluru.
:2:
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Hospet, Dist: Bellary.
3. R.Nabisab,
S/o.Adamsab Bukkasagar,
Age: Major, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o.Hospet, Dist: Bellary. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, HCGP)
....
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned
endorsement vide Annexure `N' dated 09.06.2010 passed by
the respondent No.2.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. Copies to be served.
2. Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with for the present.
3. The 2nd petitioner - Canara Bank had financed respondent No.3 for purchasing the tractor in question. The petitioner No.2 had advanced a sum of Rs.4,41,000/-. :3: After availing loan and after the purchase, the vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No.3 with an endorsement "Hypothecated to petitioner No.2". Respondent No.3 did not pay the installments. Hence, the Tractor in question was possessed by petitioner No.2 and it was brought to sale to recover the amount advanced to respondent No.3. The 1st petitioner has purchased the said tractor in the auction. Petitioner No.2 - Bank made a request to the 2nd respondent to transfer the ownership in favour of auction purchaser through the Bank. But however, the said request has been rejected, a copy of which is produced at Annexure `N' directing the parties to have the dispute resolved in a Civil Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
5. Apparently, if the 3rd respondent has any objection in having the vehicle transferred in the name of the 1st petitioner through petitioner No.2 - Bank, :4: necessary material was required to be produced by him before the competent authority - respondent No.2. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure `N' does not disclose that such material was produced. Hence, I am of the view that the endorsement suffers from serious infirmity. If respondent No.3 had failed to show that the auction has not become final, the natural course of action for respondent No.2 was to accede to the request of petitioner No.2. Hence, the following order is passed:
(a) Petition is allowed.
(b) Annexure `N' is quashed.
(c) The matter stands remitted to respondent No.2, who shall issue notice to respondent No.3.
(d) If respondent No.3 fails to produce any material to show that the auction has not attained finality, a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to transfer the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioners.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly. :5:
6. Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS/-