Kamal Finance v. The Regional Transport Officer
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 14.6.2016 Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.24420 of 2015 & MP.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 Kamal Finance, rep.by its Proprietor N.Kamal Jain
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North)-99.
2.The Regional Transport Officer, Poonamallee, Chennai.
3.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Anna Nagar West Branch, Chennai-40.
4.Mr.Murali 5.Mr.Thirumalai Eswara Rao
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in respect of proceedings in A1/23235/2015 dated 27.5.2015 issued by the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Nagarajan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan, AGP For Respondent-3 : Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu For Respondents 4 & 5 : No appearance
ORDER
Heard both.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the financier alleging that he has financed for the purchase of the vehicle bearing regn.No.TN-12-A-9455 (DUSTER 2013 Model) to the fifth respondent, from the fourth respondent. The fact remains that the vehicle was originally purchased by the fourth respondent by availing a loan from the State Bank of India. He is a defaulter and the bank initiated proceedings against him for recovery of the loan amount. It is stated that the bank obtained favorable orders to take possession of the vehicle.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. However, clandestinely, the hypothecation endorsement in the certificate of registration was removed and the vehicle appears to have been sold to the fifth respondent, who is said to have availed finance from the writ petitioner. The third respondent, on coming to know of the same, lodged a complaint to the second respondent. On enquiry after notice to all concerned, the official respondents held that the removal of hypothecation endorsement made in favour of the third respondent is illegal. Curiously enough, the fourth respondent took a stand that he never sold the vehicle to the fifth respondent. This order is now sought to be questioned by the petitioner, which is a financier.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner absolutely has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order and the impugned order having been passed after hearing all the parties and after finding out the fraud committed, the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the writ petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are also dismissed.
6. It is open to the third respondent to enforce the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North)-99.
2.The Regional Transport Officer, Poonamallee, Chennai.
3.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Anna Nagar West Branch, Chennai-40.
+1cc to Mr.P.A.Audikesavalu, Advocate sr.32161 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.32765 WP.No.24420 of 2015& MP.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 nm[co] srg 20/06/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/