S SUBRAMANIAM Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue the fitness certificate for the lorry bearing registration number MDT 3921 and also to return the lorry along with the registration certificate to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he and one Santhana Nariappan are the sons of one Sankarapandian Chettiar whose widow is the second respondent herein, and after the death of their father on 17-5-1987, the petitioner's younger brother gave a complaint to the police and at the instance of the S. I. of Police, Sankarankovil, the petitioner was threatened and compelled to enter into an arrangement on 18-3-1988 in the presence of panchayatdars. Under the said arrangement, two lorries bearing registration numbers MDT 3921 and TMU 1893 were given to the petitioner for enjoyment till a partition was effected in the family. According to the petitioner, since then he has been in enjoyment of these two lorries. Subsequently the petitioner alleges, on or about 21-6-1989 he filed O. S. No. 61 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenkasi for partition of all the family properties. In respect of the lorry MDT 3921, the registration certificate and other records continue to be in the name of the petitioner's mother, viz., the second respondent. The petitioner filed an application in the suit viz., I.A. No. 432 of 1989 for a temporary injunction and another application, I.A. No. 523 of 1989 for contempt of Court, and in those applications the petitioner's younger brother and the second respondent herein have filed counter-affidavits. In those counter-affidavits they have clearly admitted that the two lorries above mentioned were given to the petitioner under the family arrangement dated 18-3-1988. The petitioner further alleges that due to the pendency of the civil suit for partition, the second respondent herein seeks to prevent the petitioner from running the lorry MDT 3921 and she refused to sign the necessary papers for obtaining renewal of the fitness certificate for the lorry. The petitioner approached the first respondent for renewal of the fitness certificate, but the first respondent did not effect the renewal on the ground that civil litigation is pending between the parties. The petitioner's lawyer also issued two notices to the first respondent. Since there is no fitness certificate, the authorities appear to have seized the lorry in December 1989 and kept it in the police station, Sankarankovil. At this stage, the petitioner has come up to this Court with this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the authorities have failed to note that the person in whose favour a permit or a fitness certificate is issued need not necessarily be the owner of the vehicle and all that is required for obtaining a permit or a fitness certificate is possession of the vehicle. The further contention of learned counsel is that the authorities are not correct in stating that the registration certificate could be returned only on his obtaining an authorisation in his favour in view of the pendency of the civil suit. Counsel also contends that the second respondent has admitted in the civil suit that possession of the lorry was given to the petitioner in pursuance of the arrangement entered into between the parties on 18-3-1988.