B SRIDHARA KAKKILAYA Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri B. Sridhara Kakkilaya, is an Advocate practising at Kasargod. He challenges In this petition the validity of an order by which the registration certificate of his vehicle bearing No.MYX 9691 has been suspended for a period of thirty days by the Senior Regional Transport Officer, South Kanara in exercise of his powers under S.33(l) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. The petitioner is in an unfortunate position. The vehicle in question was not made use of for comitting any offence after he purchased the same. The said vehicle was made use of for conveying some passengers from Bellary to Puttur for hire without any valid permit for that purpose. The RTO issued a noice to shqw cause why the registration certificate of the vehicle should not be suspended. Respondent 3 before me was the then owner of the vehicle. He submitted his explanation denying the allegation, but, rejecting his explanation, the RTO suspended the registration certificate of the vehicle for a period of thirty days by his order dt. 7-11-69. When the appeal against the said order was pending before the Commissioner for Transport, the third respondent transferred the ownership of the vehicle to the petitioner on 12-2-1.971. The petitioner, apparently, did know that the registration certificate of the vehicle was kept under suspension He purchased the vehicle and also gqt the same registered in his favour. The appeal preferred by the third respondent was dismissed on 15-4-1971. The petitioner did not get himself impleaded as a party to the appeal. Obviqusly, he did not know of the pendency of the appeal. After the dismissal of the appeal, the RTO, Mangalore, called upon the petitioner to surrender the registration certificate of the vehicle. At that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The contention urged by Sri Tilak Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, was that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle without notice that the registration certificate of the vehicle was under suspension, and therefore, he should not be directed to surrender the relevant documents of the vehicle. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in Hajee M. Abdulla v. RTO. Kozhikhode 1964.Ker.L.T.112.

(3.) The facts of that case are almost similar to the facts of the case on hand. The Court after holding that the petitioner therein was a bona fide transferee observed thus : In my view, in the circumstances of this case, it is absolutely necessary in the interests of justice that persons like the petitioner who claim to have obtained transfer of the vehicle bona fide and for value without any knowledges that proceedings have been initiated as against them, must certainly be able to satisfy the authorities at least prime facie that they are persons who have purchased the vehicle bona fide and for value and have no knowledge of any offence having been committed by the transferor or of any proceedings being pending as against him," With the above pbservation, the Court remanded the matter to the RTO for further investigation as to whether the, petitioner therein was a bona fide purchaser who had no knowledge of the proceedings taken against the transferor for suspending the registration certificate.