MIDHUN MATHEW ABRAHAM Vs. JOINT ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 29.7.2021 in W.P.(C) No.6327 of 2021, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, holding that the entry in regard to the cases pending against the writ petitioner in the parivahan portal of the Central Government as contemplated under the amended provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, enabled the authority to include any vehicle in the list of vehicles, over which an objection is pending. It was also held that such entries are made to caution the public that the vehicle is involved in other proceedings, thereby the essential services under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition basically holding that since there are criminal proceedings pending, there is no reason to interfere and grant any relief to the appellant.

(2.) The basic material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows; appellant/writ petitioner is the registered owner of a contract carriage bearing registration No.KL05 AG 8002. According to the appellant, appellant purchased the said vehicle by availing financial assistance from Indusind Bank Ltd. and an endorsement to that effect has been made on the certificate of registration. On 30.8.2019, appellant entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for sale of the vehicle and thereupon, the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the 2nd respondent. It is submitted by the appellant that as per the terms and conditions of agreement, the total sale consideration was Rs.23,90,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid at the time of execution of agreement and the rest of the amount was agreed to be paid within 30 days from the completion of sale and on issuance of clearance certificate/non-objection certificate from the financier. It was also mentioned that the 2nd respondent has to pay instalments due to the financier and the vehicle tax liability till the completion of sale.

(3.) It is also submitted that when the appellant later contacted the nd respondent seeking balance sale consideration for completing the sale, the 2nd respondent refused to make payment citing one reason or the other. Later, appellant noticed that the 2nd respondent had committed a default in making payment of Equated Monthly Installments and not paid the vehicle tax also. When the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, he expressed his inability to purchase the vehicle and informed that he intends to withdraw the agreement entered into by and between them. Accordingly, the appellant paid Rs.4,00,000/- and the remaining balance of Rs.1,00,000/- was adjusted against the defaulted EMIs as well as the tax, which had to be paid by the 2nd respondent. Thus, according to the appellant, as mutually agreed between the parties, appellant took back the vehicle from the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent, with the help of a Police Officer, attempted to take forcible possession of the vehicle from the appellant. Thereupon, appellant filed Exhibit P2 suit and obtained Exhibit P3 injunction order restraining the 2nd respondent and the Police Officer from taking forcible possession of the vehicle. On coming to know about the injunction order secured by the appellant, the 2nd respondent submitted Exhibit P4 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, against the appellant and others, alleging that appellant took away his vehicle. The said complaint was forwarded to Karunagappally Police Station and Crime No.1766/2019 was registered alleging offences under section 447, 448, 379, 380, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and according to the appellant, the Police after a farcical investigation, has filed the final report in the crime alleging offences under sections 447 and 420 read with 34 IPC.