Jana Devi vs State of Madras represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Traffic and Licensing, Madras

Veeraswami, J.—The petitioner claims to be a financier advancing moneys under hire purchase agreements on motor vehicles. One Lakshmi

Ammal having purchased a car, MSZ 9127 under a hire purchase agreement defaulted in the payment of monthly instalments. As a result, the

petitioner issued a notice through her Counsel on 11th September, 1963, for payment of the arrears on pain of her re-taking possession of the

vehicle under the terms of the agreement. As Lakshmi Ammal had failed to comply with the demand, the petitioner exercised her right of seizure on

13th March, 1964, under the agreement dated 26th November, 1962, through her authorised agent and took possession of the vehicle. Since

Lakshmi Ammal purposely withheld the C certificate from her till 15th April, 1964, the petitioner applied on 15th April, 1964, to the Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Traffic and Licensing, for the issue of a C certificate in her favour. On 8th May, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner replied

stating that as a result of an enquiry he found that Lakshmi Ammal was questioning the legality and propriety of the seizure and that therefore the

matter should be settled in a Court of Law. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, told the petitioner to obtain an order of Court to the effect that

she was the owner so that he could issue a duplicate registration certificate. Aggrieved by this reply, the petitioner has moved this Court under Art.

226 of the Constitution asking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner to grant a duplicate certificate for registration of the

car. The petitioner adds that in view of the fact that he is not in possession of the C certificate, he has been disabled from using the car which is

garaged and kept idle. The Deputy Commissioner has in his counter affidavit urged that he never failed to exercise his jurisdiction, and that his reply

above referred to was not a final order and that therefore this petition is too premature.

The jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic and Licensing, to cancel the C certificate and issue a duplicate for default of the

owner to pay hire purchase instalments is under Rule 85 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules. It says that if the party, other than the owner, to an

agreement of hire purchase, satisfies the registering authority that he has taken possession of the vehicle owing to default of the owner under the

hire purchase agreement and the owner has abandoned or declined to deliver the certificate of registration, the registering authority may after giving

the owner an opportunity of being heard, cancel the certificate of registration and issue a duplicate one. It is clear from this rule that it is the duty of

the Deputy Commissioner to satisfy himself as to whether the petitioner had taken possession of the vehicle owing to default of the owner under the

provisions of the hire purchase agreement and the owner had refused to deliver the certificate of registration. He cannot put aside the matter merely

observing that it is a civil dispute. He must apply his mind and in so doing he may come to any conclusion, namely, whether he is satisfied or not

satisfied on the materials placed before him. It is another matter if a Court of Law agrees with his conclusion or not in a properly instituted

proceeding. But as the Deputy Commissioner does not state in his counter that he has passed any final order, I do not think it necessary to issue

any rule. The petition is dismissed, and it is expected that the Deputy Commissioner will expeditiously dispose of the petitioner''s application in

accordance with Rule 85 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules and the observations contained in this judgment. No costs.