The petitioner is the financier of a vehicle, that was registered in the name of the 4th respondent. In the writ petition, he is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the 3rd respondent which rejects his prayer for a delivery of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 11 G 8087, that was seized by the official respondents, to him. it is the case of the petitioner that proceedings were initiated against the 4th respondent in respect of the motor vehicle tax dues that accrued on another vehicle bearing registration No.KL.13A- 9483, which was subsequently sold by the 4th respondent to another person. It is his case that the official respondents had proceeded against the vehicle bearing registration NO.KL-11 G 8087 on finding that there were dues payable in respect of another vehicle. This prompted the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent with a prayer for release of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 11 G 8087. In Ext.P4 order, the 3rd respondent found that the petitioner was not the registered owner of the said vehicle and hence, the vehicle could not be released to him. Ext.P4 order, as already noted, is impugned in the writ petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to3.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on Section 8 of the Hire Purchase Act, 1972 to contend that, in terms of the said Section, the title to the vehicle would pass to the 4th respondent only on payment of the entire amounts contemplated under the Hire Purchase Agreement and not before that. It is his case that, insofar as the said condition has not been fulfilled by the 4th respondent, the petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle and Ext.P4 order, to the extent it rejects the request of the petitioner for release of the vehicle to him, is legally flawed. I am not impressed with the said contention of counsel for the petitioner. The vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11 G 8087 was seized by the official respondents for default of payment of dues under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. When the vehicle is seized for the said violation, the 3rd respondent is obliged to consider only a request for release that emanates from the registered owner of the vehicle in terms of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. This is because the proceedings against the defaulter are also taken considering his status as the registered owner of the vehicle. It follows, as a consequence, that when a request for release of the vehicle is made, the release can be effected only to a person from whom the custody was taken namely, the registered owner of the vehicle. In Ext.P4 order, the 3rd respondent considered the request of the petitioner and, on finding that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle, denied him his request for release of the vehicle to him. I do not find any illegality in Ext.P4 order of the 3rd respondent and consequently the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns