The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration of the application for transfer of registration. Admittedly the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-51B-5476 belonged to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner purchased the vehicle and obtained Form No.30 and Form No.29 from the 2nd respondent, produced as Exhibit P6, which were produced before the 1st respondent for transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle.
2. The 2nd respondent is seen to have signed in Exhibit P6 on 18.03.2013. When the application was moved before the Registering Authority, the same was not considered for reason of a No Objection Certificate [NOC] from the 3rd respondent having not been produced. The petitioner, hence, approached this Court and the writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P10. Admittedly no notice was issued and the writ petition was disposed at the admission stage itself, taking notice of the fact that in reply to a lawyer notice, the financier had issued a communication stating that there are no dues in the loan account. Hence, the writ petition was disposed of, directing consideration of the application for transfer of ownership, in accordance with law.
3. However, when the matter was placed before the authority, the authority, considering the dispute raised, issued notice both to the registered owner as also the financier. The financier appeared before the authority and stated that there are no dues as against the vehicle loan. However, the 2nd respondent raised a contention that the vehicle has not been sold by her to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent also contended before the authority that a crime was registered, insofar as the alleged fraudulent transfer sought to be effected by the petitioner herein. Hence, on the submissions of the registered owner, the registering authority refused to consider the application for issuance of clearance certificate, by Exhibit P12. In fact, the transfer of registration could have been only after the clearance certificate is obtained, since both the registered owner and the petitioner reside in the jurisdiction of different registering authorities. It was, hence, that the petitioner approached this Court, challenging Exhibit P12.
4. In the present writ petition, notice was issued to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent appeared. The specific contention of the 2nd respondent is that, the petitioner fraudulently obtained her signature in Exhibit P6. Hence, it has to be found that the 2nd respondent has not denied the signature on Exhibit P6. The criminal complaint said to have been filed by the 2nd respondent is said to be referred by the police. The 2nd respondent, however, contends that a protest complaint has been filed. Be that as it may, the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps to challenge the document in which she was allegedly made to sign, by employing fraud.
5. In the above circumstance, this Court cannot but direct the transfer of registration to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent, however, would be left with the remedies to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievances, which has to be adjudicated on the basis of the facts placed before that forum. As of now since it is admitted that Form 30 has been signed by the 2nd respondent, the registering authority would necessarily have to grant the transfer of ownership as sought for. In such circumstance, the 1st respondent is directed to grant clearance certificate within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, however, subject to any proceedings taken by the 2nd respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )