SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 702

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
Sanapathi Jyothi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10410 of 2020
Decided On : 31-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Rajesh Babu.
For the Respondent: V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Damaraju Madhusudhan Vijay Kumar.

The authorities have the power to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders under Section 51(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act in cases of complaints of fraudulent transfer of vehicles.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 51(5) - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT - SECTION 21 - TRANSFER OF VEHICLE - COMPLAINT OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFER - AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT ENQUIRY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS - COURT'S DIRECTION TO AUTHORITIES TO ADJUDICATE AND PASS ORDERS WITHIN FOUR WEEKS.

Fact of the Case:

The 9th respondent complained to the authorities that his car was transferred fraudulently using his Aadhar number without his knowledge. The 4th respondent issued notices to the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8. The petitioner challenged the proceedings before the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court directed the authorities to adjudicate whether the 9th respondent had signed the papers for the transfer of the vehicle as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. Pending adjudication, the authorities were directed to issue fresh show cause notices to respondents 6 and 9 and the petitioner and conduct an enquiry.

Issues: Whether the 9th respondent could agitate before the Court by way of a counterclaim to direct the authorities to initiate action against respondents 6 to 8.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the authorities had the power to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders under Section 51(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act. The Court directed the authorities to adjudicate whether the 9th respondent had signed the papers for the transfer of the vehicle and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Final Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

"To issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of respondents 3 to 5 in demanding the petitioner that they intend to seize the Motor Car – TATA Indica Vista of Dew White Colour bearing No.AP37CA 5595 absolutely belonging to the petitioner though the same was released after the fine amount was paid by the petitioner vide Proceedings –AP237/Dec, 2019/101960, dt.26.5.2020 issued by Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector on behalf of 5th Respondent, pursuant to the Show-Cause Notice of the 4th Respondent dt.10-01-2020, followed by the Legal Notice dt.10-02-2020 of the petitioner and followed by the 4th Respondent vide Lr.No: No.6004/A3/2019, Dt.02-03-2020 to the 3rd Respondent, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and unreasonable and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, by consequently, directing the respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over her Motor Car – TATA Indica Vista of Dew White Colour bearing No.AP 37CA 5595, and pass such other orders."

2. Sri Oggula Ravi Kumar, who is arrayed as 9th respondent herein, made a complaint in Spandana, in turn, it was re-directed to the 4th respondent. His complaint is that his Car bearing No.AP 37CA 5595 was transferred in favour of one Sri Channamsetti Punnayya Naidu-8th respondent without his knowledge and the said transfer has been done in fraudulent way and clandestinely by using his Aadhar number and therefore, he requested the authorities to take action. It is further stated that he has purchased the said vehicle on finance from the 6th respondent herein. In pursuance of the letter/complaint made by the 9th respondent, the 4th respondent herein has issued a notice to the petitioner herein and to the respondents 6 to 8. The petitioner herein has sent a legal notice dated 10.02.2020 in reply to the notice of the 4th respondent inter alia the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The case of the writ petitioner is that he purchased the said car from 8th respondent, who is the highest bidder and he knocked the bid conducted by the 6th respondent, whereby the 8th respondent, in turn, sold the said car to the 7th respondent and from the 7th respondent, the writ petitioner has purchased the car and after payment of the penalty and other amounts to the 7th respondent, he owned the car and he is bona fide purchaser of the car. Aggrieved by the Lr.No.6004/A3/2019 dated 02.03.2020 issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner herein has challenged the proceedings before this Hon’ble Court. This Court, vide order date 15.07.2020, directed the respondents 3 to 5 not to seize the petitioner’s car bearing No.AP 37CA 5595 and also directed the petitioner not to transfer or create any third party interest over the said vehicle and also directed the petitioner herein to issue notices to the unofficial respondents.

3. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel, filed vakalat for respondent No.6 and Sri D.V. Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel, has appeared for respondent No.9.

4. Learned counsel for the 9th respondent filed counter and would submit that the 9th respondent purchased the vehicle by availing loan from the 6th respondent and as the 9th respondent failed to pay few installments, the 6th respondent has whisked/taken away the car and they have invoked the Arbitration Clause as per the agreement clause entered by the 9th respondent under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the 9th respondent has not contested in the arbitration proceedings. The Arbitration Proceeding Case No.TMFL/ARB/May, LOT-97(2017)/151, dated 30.12.2017, eventually, ended in ex parte. The further case of the 9th respondent is that without availing of the remedies as contemplated un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top