1. The petitioner, the proprietor of M/s. Angel Marketing is aggrieved by the inaction of respondents 2 to 4 in not taking the necessary steps to transfer the registration of an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. KL-01-AZ-163, which was purchased by him in an auction from the 5th respondent. The petitioner purchased the said vehicle, which was under the ownership of the Government Central Press, in an auction sale conducted on 04.07.2025 pursuant to proceedings issued by the Director of the Printing Department, granting sanction by letter dated 04.06.2025, and conducted through M/s. MSTC (Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd.). The car was put up for online auction, and the petitioner, being the highest bidder, offered a sum of Rs.1,06,002/-. The sale was confirmed in his favour, and the entire amount, inclusive of GST, was remitted. Thereafter, the Director of Printing passed Ext.P2 order dated 11.08.2025, releasing the vehicle to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner immediately applied under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, along with the relevant records, before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent conducted a personal hearing; however, the transfer was not effected as the petitioner was unable to remit the fee required through the 'Parivahan portal', since the tax particulars had not been updated, the vehicle being a Government vehicle exempted from payment of road tax. The hearing was conducted by the 4th respondent on 16.08.2025 itself, but no steps were taken to update the tax details of the vehicle, and consequently, the transfer was not materialised. Ext.P3 letter was issued by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent requesting updation of the registration validity particulars of the vehicle, and the petitioner also submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 25.08.2025 seeking immediate intervention.

3. The certificate of registration of the said car was originally valid for a period of fifteen years and expired on 17.08.2025. The petitioner contends that both the purchase of the vehicle and the application for change of ownership were made while the registration was valid. The fee could not be remitted as the tax details were not updated in the Parivahan portal, and due to the delay on the part of respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner was unable to effect the transfer of ownership before the expiry of the registration. The petitioner therefore prays that respondents 2 to 4 be directed to take immediate steps to transfer the registration and ownership of the car bearing No. KL-01-AZ-163 in favour of the petitioner with effect from 16.08.2025 and to make the necessary updates in the Parivahan portal pertaining to the vehicle.

4. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, the Transport Commissioner, contended that the vehicle falls under the category of a Government-owned vehicle and that the certificate of registration expires on completion of fifteen years from the date of first registration, which in the present case is 18.08.2010, in accordance with Rule 52A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which came into force with effect from 01.04.2023. As per the said mandate, the validity of the certificate of registration is not renewable, and the vehicle is required to be scrapped.

5. It is further submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 25.08.2025 was forwarded to the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Punalur, and as per his report, the petitioner appeared for a hearing on 16.08.2025, a day before the expiry of the validity of the registration certificate. The petitioner was advised to submit an online application for transfer of ownership through the PARIVAHAN portal along with remittance of the applicable fees. However, the petitioner did not submit any such application and did not contact the Joint Regional Transport Officer thereafter until 18.11.2025.

6. The Joint Regional Transport Officer has reported that since the vehicle was originally registered at the Regional Transport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, tax updation could not be carried out at the office of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Punalur. It is further pointed out that Ext.P2 order is dated 11.08.2025. According to the respondents, the petitioner was fully aware of the impending expiry of the certificate of registration and that renewal after expiry was legally impermissible. It is contended that the petitioner could have acted immediately after 11.08.2025, but instead submitted the application only on 16.08.2025. The respondents also place reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13262 of 2025, wherein it was held that purchasers of Government vehicles that have completed fifteen years cannot claim renewal of the certificate of registration or transfer of ownership in view of Rule 52A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

7. Heard Sri. K. Siju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Devi Shri R., the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

8. On a consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, I find that the contentions raised by the respondents cannot be accepted for more reasons than one. The auction of the vehicle was conducted on 04.07.2025, and on the petitioner emerging as the successful bidder and remitting the entire sale consideration, the sale was complete and ownership transferred to the petitioner, and the Director of Printing Department issued Ext.P2 proceedings dated 11.08.2025, releasing the vehicle to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter applied for the transfer of ownership under the RC book.

9. The records clearly establish that the delay in effecting the transfer of ownership from the date of application till expiry of the registration was not attributable to any lapse on the part of the petitioner. The transfer could not be completed solely due to the failure of the respondents to update the tax particulars of the vehicle in the Parivahan portal, which was necessary for remittance of the prescribed fee. The petitioner cannot be faulted for such administrative delay, having taken all the steps required of him within the period of validity of the registration.

10. It is also not in dispute that, in terms of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner submitted the application for transfer of ownership within the stipulated period of fourteen days before the 4th respondent, and well within the period during which the certificate of registration was valid. The application for transfer having been duly made within the statutory time after the auction, the subsequent expiry of the fifteen-year period of registration cannot operate to the detriment of the petitioner. Once the title stood transferred and the purchaser applied for a change in records within time, the rigour of Rule 52A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, governing Government vehicles, would have no application. Therefore, the completion of fifteen years from the date of first registration does not defeat the petitioner’s claim in the facts of this case.

11. The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of this Court in Jibin Shaji v. Kerala Forest Department (W.P.(C) No. 13262 of 2025) is misconceived. In the said case, the auction was conducted after the expiry of the fifteen-year period, rendering the transaction subject to Rule 52A. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. On the date on which the petitioner became the owner of the vehicle pursuant to the auction, which was well before the expiry of the fifteen years of registration, Rule 52A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules had no application, as the vehicle ceased to be a Government-owned vehicle upon its lawful transfer and the statutory bar under Rule 52A applies only to Government vehicles and not to privately owned vehicles. The refusal to effect the transfer of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner is, therefore, clearly illegal.

                  In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to update the relevant particulars in the Parivahan portal and effect the transfer of registration and ownership of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-01-AZ-163 in favour of the petitioner with effect from 16.08.2025, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.