Telangana High Court
WP/26733/2007 of Kanakamamidi Kistaiah, Vs The Secretary,Regional Transport Authority on 28 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.26733 of 2007 Dated: 28-12-2007 Between: Kankamamidi Kistaiah And another ..... Petitioners AND The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad. And others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Sriram Reddy Counsel for Respondents 1
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.26733 of 2007
Dated: 28-12-2007
Between:Kankamamidi Kistaiah And another ANDThe Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,Hyderabad. And others.
..... Pet
.....Respo
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Sriram Reddy Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : A.G.P. for Transport.Counsel for Respondents 3 to 5: Sri K.Madhav Reddy
O R D E R
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26733 of 2007
At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is being disposed of with theconsent of the learned counsel.
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action ofrespondent No.2 in not effecting transfer of the ownership of the bus bearingNo.AP 13W 123 (Ashoka Leyland 2001 make) in the name of petitioner No.1as illegal and arbitrary.
Petitioner No.1 claims to have purchased the above-mentioned bus on1.12.2007 from petitioner No.2. The said bus is registered with respondentNo.2. When petitioner No.1 allegedly approached respondent No.2 forchange of ownership as envisaged in Section 50(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act1988, the said authority directed petitioner No.1 to submit No ObjectionCertificate from respondent No.5 on the ground that the said bus was earlierunder hire with Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( for short“the Corporation”).
On 14.12.2007, this Court while admitting the writ petition granted twoweeks’ time to enable the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 tofile counter affidavit. Today, at the hearing learned counsel for the petitionerssubmitted that insistence on production of No Objection Certificate from theCorporation is not envisaged by any statutory enactments and therefore, theaction of respondent No.2 authority is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Neitherlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport nor the learned StandingCounsel for the Corporation has pointed out any legal provision under whichrespondent No.2 is entitled to insist on production of No Objection Certificatefrom the Corporation in respect of a bus which was under hire to it earlier andownership is sought to be transferred, as a condition for recording the changeof ownership. In view of the same, I am of the view that respondent No.2cannot insist as a pre-condition, production of No Objection Certificate fromthe Corporation for entertaining and disposing of the application of petitionerNo.1 for recording change of ownership.
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to entertain the application of the petitioner No.1for recording change of ownership and dispose of the same within a period ofthree weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34904 of2007 filed by the petitioners seeking interim relief is also disposed of.
Date:28.12.2007mdaa
___________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J