RAVICHANDRAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the 1st respondent to remove the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.TN-47-AL5688 from "Block List"by considering his representation dated 08.06.2020.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the above said car was owned by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent sold the said car to one Murugesan who has been dealing with the used cars sales business in the name and style of "Sri Murugan Auto Works", Karur, along with all the original documents relating to the car. He would further submit that on 05.05.2019 the petitioner purchased the above said car for a valid sale consideration from the said Murugesan. When the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for transfer of ownership of the said vehicle, the 1st respondent denied to transfer the ownership stating that the above said car number has been block listed, based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, original owner of the vehicle. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has produced the original RC Book, Sale Consideration Receipt, Transfer of Ownership Form and Delivery Note, the first respondent, without any valid reason, denied to transfer the ownership of the vehicle only based on the false complaint given by the 2nd respondent. Having sold the vehicle, the 2nd respondent has no right to give complaint against the petitioner. As the block list was made only based on the false complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner also lodged a Police complaint against the 2nd respondent. Hence, now there is no impediment for the 1st respondent to remove the above said car number from the Block List and to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle. In this regard, the petitioner has also sent a representation on 08.06.2020 to the 1st respondent. But, till date there is no response to the same. Hence, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition for the aforesaid prayer. Thus, he prayed to allow this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner himself admitted that he has not purchased the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle, but from a car mechanic. Further, only based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the vehicle in question has been block listed. As per Section 50(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the application for transfer of ownership should be filed within 14 days of transfer of vehicle. In this case, the petitioner has chosen to apply for transfer of ownership after a lapse of 10 months from the date of purchase. The petitioner has used the vehicle without getting the vehicle transferred in his name, as admitted by himself, which is certainly violation of rule provisions. As the subject issue is pending before the Police and Court of law, the petitioner ought to have been impleaded the concerned Police authorities. But, he has failed to do so. Hence, the writ petition deserves no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.