Girishkumar. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[mr. justice l.narayana swamy, j.] this writ petition is filed under articles '226 and 227 of constitution of india with a prayer to direct the r3 & 4 to consider the request of petitioner for issue of registration certificate (form no. 10) and effect the khata in his name by entering his name by entering his name in k.r. and rfc as the owner/occupant in respect of land bearing sy.no.78 measuring 15 acres situated at sonnenahalli village. hesaraghatta hobli. bangalore north taluk bangalore and etc......upon instructions, submitted that ext.p7 cannot be construed as an application submitted in terms of the provisions under the motor vehicles act. in case the petitioner is desirous to get the permit transferred in favour of the fourth respondent the petitioner and the fourth respondent have to file a joint application, in accordance with the provisions, before the appropriate authority. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such an application in accordance with the provisions will be submitted with the appropriate forum. the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that they got objections with respect to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question. those are matters to be considered by the first respondent at the appropriate stage on receipt of a proper application from the petitioner. in the said circumstances, it will be open to the petitioner to file a joint application along with the fourth respondent for transfer of ownership of the vehicle bearing registration no.kl 03-j 2372 before the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions. in case of receipt of such a joint application, prior to the passing of orders thereon the.....

Judgment:

1. The petitioner who is the registered owner of motor vehicle bearing registration no. KL-03-J-2372 filed this writ petition alleging inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in considering Ext.P7 application. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 application has been submitted on 23.9.2010 with a request to transfer the ownership of the vehicle. The contention is that respondents 1 and 2 are not taking up the said application for consideration and insisting for production of No Objection Certificate from the financier.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent, the financier, and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that Ext.P7 cannot be construed as an application submitted in terms of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act. In case the petitioner is desirous to get the permit transferred in favour of the fourth respondent the petitioner and the fourth respondent have to file a joint application, in accordance with the provisions, before the appropriate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such an application in accordance with the provisions will be submitted with the appropriate forum. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that they got objections with respect to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question. Those are matters to be considered by the first respondent at the appropriate stage on receipt of a proper application from the petitioner. In the said circumstances, it will be open to the petitioner to file a joint application along with the fourth respondent for transfer of ownership of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 03-J 2372 before the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions. In case of receipt of such a joint application, prior to the passing of orders thereon the third respondent shall be put on notice and shall be afforded with an opportunity of being heard, in case it is sought for.