- (1.)Petitioner is the registered owner of the stage carriage - KBF 2682 - which was hypothecated to the third respondent. The petitioner had committed default in payment of the loan amount. Therefore, notices were sent to the petitioner as well as to the guarantor by the third respondent stating that the vehicle would be seized if they did not make repayment of the loan amount. Since they did not turn up, the third respondent seized the vehicle along with the registration certificate. Thereafter, the third respondent applied for issue of a fresh registration certificate in its favour, as required under the Motor Vehicles Rules, in the prescribed form. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to file his representation, if any, against issuing a fresh certificate of registration in the same of the third respondent. The petitioner, therefore, filed Ext. P3 representation before the second respondent stating that he had already surrendered the vehicle along with the registration certificate to the third respondent and that since he had not absconded himself, there was no justification for the registrating authority to issue proceedings under S.51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also under R.61(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the essential conditions, contemplated under S.51 (5) of the Act, were inapplicable in his case and, therefore, there was no justification to proceed with the matter.
(2.)On receipt of Ext. P3, the second respondent issued another notice to the petitioner asking him to appear before the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Mattancherry on 9-11-1990 at 11.00 a.m. to have a personal hearing in connection with the disposal of the application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question in favour of 3rd respondent. The said notice is stated to have been received by the petitioner only on 10-11-1990 at 2.00 p.m. and, therefore, he could not appear before the Joint Regional Transport Officer on 9-11-1990. On 10-11-1990 itself, the petitioner claims to have approached the second respondent and on enquiry, he was informed that on 9-11-1990 itself, the second respondent passed Ext. P9 cancelling the original registration certificate and issued a fresh registration certificate in the name of the third respondent. The petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P9 order in this proceeding under Art:226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.)Heard counsel on both sides and perused the records produced by the Government Pleader.
;