P.J. Shaji vs Joint Regional Transport Officer and Another

Pareed Pillay, C.J.—Appellant filed the original petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order of the first respondent and also seeking for a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to issue to him a duplicate certificate of registration in respect of his autorickshaw KL-8/B 9473. The learned single Judge dismissed the original petition holding that Ext.P3 order does not warrant interference in view of the rival claim made by the second respondent.

It has come on record that with respect to the vehicle in question there is an agreement of transfer dated 7th August, 1994 in favour of the 2nd respondent. As against the claim of the appellant for obtaining a duplicate registration certificate the 2nd respondent took up the stand that it cannot be issued to the appellant as the vehicle was already transferred to him. The 2nd respondent contended that on the strength of the agreement the original registration certificate was given to him by the appellant. The first respondent held that duplicate registration certificate cannot be issued to the appellant as his contention that the original registration certificate is lost is false.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant who has entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent and transferred the vehicle to him can claim duplicate registration certificate. Rule 53 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that duplicate certificate of registration of a vehicle can be granted only if the certificate of registration is lost or destroyed. Rule 53(1) enjoins the owner of the vehicle to report to the police station within the jurisdiction of which the loss or destruction has occurred and also intimate the fact in writing to the Registering Authority by whom the certificate of registration was issued. Rule 97 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 contains another ground in addition to what have been stated in Rule 53 of the Central Rules, which enables one to obtain a duplicate registration certificate. It provides that if the Registration Certificate is not in the possession of the owner for reasons beyond his control to be specified, the owner shall forthwith intimate the fact and apply for a duplicate certificate of registration in Form 21 to the original Registering Authority along with the fee prescribed by the Central Government. As can be discerned from Rule 53 a duplicate certificate of registration can be obtained if the original certificate or registration is lost or destroyed. Under Rule 97 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the owner of a Vehicle can obtain duplicate registration certificate if he establishes that the Registration Certificate is not in his possession for reasons beyond his control. Only under the two contingencies mentioned in the Central Rules or the Kerala Rules an owner of a vehicle can obtain duplicate certificate of registration. After having voluntarily transferred the vehicle to a third party the erstwhile owner cannot validly claim for a duplicate certificate of registration. In view of the voluntary transfer of the vehicle to the 2nd respondent appellant cannot contend that the certificate of registration was lost or destroyed or that it is not in his possession for reasons beyond his control. It is not possible to hold that the appellant could establish that he is not in possession of the registration certificate due to reasons beyond his control. In other words a vehicle owner who has transferred his vehicle and handed over the registration certificate to the transferee cannot claim duplicate registration certificate. As the appellant had transferred the vehicle to a third party and handed over the registration certificate to him, he cannot validly seek issuance of a duplicate registration certificate.

There is no merit in the writ appeal. Writ appeal is dismissed in limine.