Prahu Jayaraman, No.72 v. The Regional Transport Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.08.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN W.P.No.27572 of 2010 Prahu Jayaraman ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Bye Pass Road, Poonamalle, Chennai - 600 056.

2. The Manager, ACT India Motors, No.1, Sambandham Street, (Off. G.N.Chetty Road) T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

3. The Manager, Sri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., Administrative Office, Lady Desikachery Road, (Entrance C.P.P.Ramasamay Road) Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue an original registration certificate for the vehicle bearing engine No.483DLTC55GQZ711149 and chassis No.MAT4600519U G03645 or make the loss good that will be caused to the petitioner due to the issue of duplicate registration certificate.

For Petitioner : Mr.Pradeep Jayaraman For R1 : Mr.V.Shanmugasundar Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.K.S.Ramakrishnan, No Appearance

O R D E R

The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to direct the first respondent to issue original registration certificate pertaining to his vehicle bearing Engine No.483DLTC55GQZ711149 and Chassis No.MAT4600519U G03645 and for consequential relief.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.According to the petitioner, he purchased a vehicle TATA Winger bearing Regn.No.TN20 BX 8363 from the second respondent, which was financed by the third respondent under the hire purchase agreement. After registering the said vehicle, the first respondent has sent the original registration certificate to the second respondent and not to the petitioner or to the third respondent. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent to issue the registration certificate to him, who, in turn, replied that they would issue a duplicate registration certificate for the vehicle in question. Hence, this writ petition.

3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, on instructions, submitted that the first respondent had already handed over the original RC book pertaining to the vehicle in question, to the third respondent.

4.Upon notice, one Mr.K.S.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel entered appearance for the third respondent. Despite his name having been printed in the cause list, he has not represented the case even for a single occasion. Today also, there is no representation for the third respondent.

5.In such circumstances, this Court has no other option except to record the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. Accordingly, the said submission is recorded and the writ petition stands closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to agitate his claim for return of the RC book as well as compensation against the third respondent before the appropriate forum. No costs.

AT/rk Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Bye Pass Road, Poonamalle, Chennai - 600 056.

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.54254 KR/29/10/18 W.P.No.27572 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/