S. Subramaniam vs Regional Transport Officer, and others

Bakthavatsalam,, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue the fitness

certificate for the lorry bearing registration number MDT 3921 and also to return the lorry along with the registration certificate to the petitioner.

The petitioner claims that he and one Santhana Nariappan are the sons of one Sankarapandian Chettiar whose widow is the second respondent

herein, and after the death of their father on 17-5-1987, the petitioner''s younger brother gave a complaint to the police and at the instance of the

S. I. of Police, Sankarankovil, the petitioner was threatened and compelled to enter into an arrangement on 18-3-1988 in the presence of

panchayatdars. Under the said arrangement, two lorries bearing registration numbers MDT 3921 and TMU 1893 were given to the petitioner for

enjoyment till a partition was effected in the family. According to the petitioner, since then he has been in enjoyment of these two lorries.

Subsequently the petitioner alleges, on or about 21-6-1989 he filed O. S. No. 61 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Tenkasi

for partition of all the family properties. In respect of the lorry MDT 3921, the registration certificate and other records continue to be in the name

of the petitioner''s mother, viz., the second respondent. The petitioner filed an application in the suit viz., I.A. No. 432 of 1989 for a temporary

injunction and another application, I.A. No. 523 of 1989 for contempt of Court, and in those applications the petitioner''s younger brother and the

second respondent herein have filed counter-affidavits. In those counter-affidavits they have clearly admitted that the two lorries above mentioned

were given to the petitioner under the family arrangement dated 18-3-1988. The petitioner further alleges hat due to the pendency of the civil suit

for partition, the second respondent herein seeks to prevent the petitioner from running the lorry MDT 3921 and she refused to sign the necessary

papers for obtaining renewal of the fitness certificate the lorry. The petitioner approached the first respondent for renewal of the fitness certificate,

but the first respondent did not effect the renewal on the ground that civil litigation is pending between the parties. The petitioner''s lawyer also

issued two notices to the first respondent. Since there is no fitness certificate, the authorities appear to have seized the lorry in December 1989 and

kept it in the police station, Sankarankovil. At this stage, the petitioner has come up to this Court with this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the authorities have failed to note that the person in whose favour a permit or a fitness certificate

is issued need not necessarily be the owner of the vehicle and all that is required for obtaining a permit or a fitness certificate is possession of the

vehicle. The further contention of learned counsel is that the authorities are not correct in stating that the registration certificate could be returned

only on his obtaining an authorisation in his favour in view of the pendency of the civil suit. Counsel also contends that the second respondent has

admitted in the civil suit that possession of the lorry was given to the petitioner in pursuance of the arrangement entered into between the parties on

18-3-1988.

I have considered the arguments of learned counsel. Section 2(31) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 defines ''Permit'' as follows :

''Permit'' means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an auth- ority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising

the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle.

Section 2(30) defines ''owner'' as meaning a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the

guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject matter of a hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an

agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. Section 56 of the Act provides for certificate of fitness

of transport vehicles. A reading of the definition of the term, ''owner'' clearly shows that the petitioner cannot ask for a fitness certificate especially

when a civil suit is pending. Whether the second respondent or the petitioner''s younger brother have admitted before the civil court about the

petitioner''s possession of the vehicle or not, cannot be decided in this writ petition. I am of the view that the stand taken by the authorities is

correct and is in accordance with law and no mandamus can be issued as asked for by the petitioner. I am not able to accept the contention of

learned counsel for the petitioner that possession of the vehicle is enough for a person to obtain fitness certificate under the provisions of the Act. I

do not see any provision which could support the extreme contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances I

am not inclined to issue a Writ of mandamus as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. At any rate, it is open to the petitioner to

move the civil court for getting appropriate relief, since the matter is pending in the civil court and this is also a subject matter of the partition suit.

5.Petition dismissed.