- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15541 WP No. 36992 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.36992 OF 2025 (MV) BETWEEN: MUKESH KUMAR CHORADIA S/O BHANWARILAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.27/7, SRI SKANDA RUKMAJI LANE, BALEPET CROSS, BENGALURU-560053. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRITHVI RAJ B.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560011. 2. CHANDAN, S/O S.G. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.140/A, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, JAIMARUTHINAGAR, NEAR SIDDAGANGA SCHOOL, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI PRAVEEN RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 12-11-2025 BEARING NO.¸ÀA/¥Áæ¸ÁC.¨ÉA(zÀ)/¸ÁjUÉ/ Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15541 WP No. 36992 of 2025 2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESP. NO.1 (RTO) AT ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO ISSUE FRC (FRESH REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE) IN RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE i.e., TOYOTA ETIOS BEARING NO.KA-06-D-3977. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the notice dated 12.11.2025 issued by the RTO refusing to issue a Fresh Registration Certificate (FRC) for the vehicle KA-06-D- 3977 on the ground that the private complaint (PCR No. 17696/2025) is pending. BRIEF FACTS 2. The petitioner is engaged in hire purchase business of second hand vehicles. The respondent No. 2 took the vehicle under hire purchase agreement dated 05.03.2024. Though the petitioner is a financier/owner, RC stood in the name of respondent No. 2 for operational purposes. The respondent No. 2 defaulted in EMI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15541 WP No. 36992 of 2025 payments, paid only two instalments and after repeated notices the petitioner repossessed vehicle on 24.10.2024, issued further notices calling upon the respondent No.2 to clear the dues. The vehicle was sold on 09.04.2025 to one Vinod Kumar for `.1,65,000/- and total outstanding balance due was `.3,10,000/-. The petitioner initiated transfer of RC in favour of the purchaser. The RTO issued notice to respondent No. 2 to surrender RC. Meanwhile, respondent No. 2 filed PCR 17696/2025 alleging loss of `.80,000/- cash and gold from the vehicle at the time of repossession. Based on this PCR, RTO refused FRC stating vehicle is subject matter of criminal case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the PCR pertains only to the alleged contents, cash/gold and not the vehicle itself, and that the RTO acted mechanically without application of mind. It is contended that under Section 51 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, RTO is empowered to cancel existing RC after - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15541 WP No. 36992 of 2025 notice to the registered owner and pendency of PCR does not create any legal bar for issuing FRC. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that petitioner's request for issuance of fresh FRC could not be considered in view of pendency of the PCR 17696/2025 before the competent Criminal Court. It is contended that unless the criminal proceedings are concluded or appropriate clarification is received, issuance of FRC would lead to complications and concluding claims. It is submitted that the action of issuing the impugned notice dated 12.11.2025 is thus justified as being in accordance with the administrative action and avoid multiplicity of disputes. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 contends that the petitioner has illegally repossessed the vehicle and has failed to return the certain valuables namely cash and gold allegedly kept in the vehicle at the time of repossession and in this regard respondent No. 2 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15541 WP No. 36992 of 2025 has initiated criminal proceedings in PCR 17696/2025 which are pending adjudication and it is submitted that till the said dispute is adjudicated the vehicle ought not to be transferred and any issuance of FRC in favour of third party would prejudice the rights of respondent No. 2. 6. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. The only issue that arises for consideration is, whether the respondent No. 1-RTO was justified in refusing to consider issuance of Fresh Registration Certificate (FRC) in respect of the subject vehicle bearing KA-06-D-3977 on the ground of pendency of PCR 17696/2025? 7. A perusal of the material on record indicates that the said PCR pertains to the alleged loss of cash and gold said to have been kept in the vehicle at the time of repossession. There is no dispute raised therein with regard to the ownership, repossession or transfer of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15541 WP No. 36992 of 2025 vehicle. Thus the said criminal proceedings have no nexus to the question of issuance of FRC. Section 51 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under : “51. Special provisions regarding motor vehicle subject to hire-purchase agreement, etc.—(1) Where an application for registration of a motor vehicle which is held under a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement (hereafter in this section referred to as the said agreement) is made, the registering authority shall make an entry in the certificate of registration regarding the existence of the said agreement.” 8. In terms of the above provision, respondent No. 1 is required to consider the request for issuance of FRC upon issuance of notice to the registered owner. Admittedly such notice has been already issued. Therefore the statutory obligation of the authority is to proceed in accordance with law. 9. The impugned notice dated 12.11.2025 discloses that the respondent No. 1 has declined to proceed with FRC solely on the basis of pendency of the aforesaid PCR, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15541 WP No. 36992 of 2025 without examining the nature of the allegations and without application of mind. The said consideration is only extraneous and irrelevant to the issue of transfer of registration. It is well settled that the administrative authorities cannot be guided by irrelevant consideration while exercising statutory powers. The impugned action being based solely on an irrelevant consideration cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this Court pass the following : ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned notice dated 12.11.2025 is hereby set aside. (iii) Mandamus is issued to respondent No. 1 to consider issue of Fresh Registration Certificate in respect of the subject matter vehicle, in accordance with law independently and uninfluenced by the pendency of PCR 17696/2025 within a period - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15541 WP No. 36992 of 2025 of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9