DHANESH SASI Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that he is the son and legal heir of late Sri.P.K. Sasi, who is the registered owner of a goods carriage bearing registration No. KL-41-F- 7818. He has succeeded in the possession of the vehicle and is operating the vehicle in terms of Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, pending endorsement of the transfer of the registration in his name. He states that when he attempted to remit the fee for renewal of fitness online through the 'E-vahan' portal he was denied access on the ground that the vehicle is included in the 'blacklisted' category on account of pending check reports. Being aggrieved by the denial of access, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to renew and issue the fitness certificate of his vehicle without insisting on clearing any pending check reports.

(2.) I have heard Sri. P. Deepak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Sri. P. Deepak relying on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kerala Bus Transport Association and Another v. Transport Commissioner [2013 (1) KLT 440], contended that refusal or renewal of permit or declining the certificate of fitness owing to the pendency of a check report is wholly inequitable. The learned counsel would also refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2554 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017, wherein this Court relying on the dictum laid down by this Court in State of Kerala and Another v. C.P.Varghese [2017(3) KLT 744], held that the pendency of the check report cannot be used to deny the registered owner his right to transfer the vehicle or in seeking endorsement of the same in the registration certificate.