High Court for State of TelanganaWP/17175/2006dismissed

M.Vijay Kumar v. The Deputy Transport Commisioner And Commissioner,

2016-08-12P Naveen Rao3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

Present

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17175 of 2006 Between:

M. Vijay Kumar, s/o. Subramanyam, Aged:about 36 years occ:Business R/o.No.15-70, Brahmin Street, Punganur, Chittoor District.

.. Petitioner AND The Deputy Transport Commissioner & Commissioner, R.T.A.Chittoor and others.

.. Respondents

The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.17175 of 2006

ORDER

Petitioner purchased goods transport vehicle. The said vehicle was financed by 3rd and 4th respondents, the 3rd respondent to an extent of 90% and 4th respondent to an extent of 10%. According to the agreement, the burden lies on the 4th respondent to collect equitable monthly instalments from petitioner and to pay to the 3rd respondent. As per 3rd and 4th respondents, though the liability is on petitioner, petitioner did not pay the instalments and 4th respondent paid the instalments. Since petitioner defaulted in payments, the vehicle was sold in the year 2006 and money recovered was adjusted towards loan account. This writ petition was instituted seeking a declaration that the proceedings/letter dated 26.07.2006 as illegal. The said letter was addressed by the Regional Transport Officer, Chittoor, to the Advocate informing him that the fresh registration certificate was issued in favour of financier on 23.06.2006.

2. A bare perusal of pleadings and the proceedings would disclose that it is an interse dispute between the petitioner and his financier and the registering authority only acted in accordance with the requisition made and after following due procedure. Be that as it may, by the time the writ petition was instituted, it appears the vehicle was already sold and purchaser of the vehicle

is not a party to this petition.

3. In view of the same, no relief as sought for can be granted. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 12th August, 2016 sj