JUDGMENT : SUNIL THOMAS, J. 1. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5176/2021 is a finance company dealing with automobile financing. They had financed a stage carriage number KL 18 R 5664 owned by the second respondent. The installments due were regularly remitted but after some time default was committed. Possession of the vehicle was taken with notice to the second respondent in 2018. RC owner had refused to handover the original RC book. Thereafter, since amount was not repaid in spite of long lapse of time, the petitioner applied for fresh RC under section 51(5) evidenced by Ext.P2. It seems that no order has been passed by the first respondent RTO in spite of long delay on a premise that RC owner has raised an objection regarding issuance of fresh RC. Hence the writ petition is filed for a direction to the first respondent to issue fresh RC. 2. The second respondent in W.P. (C) No. 5176/2021 is the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3661/2021. She is the RC owner of the vehicle involved in the above writ petition. The writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5176/2021, the financier, is the third respondent in this writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that, the stage carriage which was purchased had a loan availed from the third respondent financier. The petitioner was remitting the installment regularly. Thereafter, the third respondent demanded huge amounts from the petitioner which was declined. She insisted for a statement of account being given, which was refused. Hence, there was some delay in payment. The third respondent illegally seized the vehicle and an intimation was issued to the RC owner on 23.5.2018. In the above background, she issued an objection against granting fresh RC to the financier. This writ petition was filed contending that condition No. 5 contained in Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act are not complied with. It was further contended that, Ext.P7 issued by the first respondent for surrendering the RC Book was improper and liable to be quashed. 3. Heard Mr. Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5176/2021, Mr. Pramoj Abraham appearing for the third respondent in W.P. (C) No. 3661/2021, Advocate P. Asha for the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3666/2021 and the learned senior Government Pleader, Mr. Bimal Nath appearing for the RTO. 4. 3. Heard Mr. Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5176/2021, Mr. Pramoj Abraham appearing for the third respondent in W.P. (C) No. 3661/2021, Advocate P. Asha for the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3666/2021 and the learned senior Government Pleader, Mr. Bimal Nath appearing for the RTO. 4. It seems that the vehicle was under finance, that default was committed and that financier had taken possession are not in dispute. Though the financier claimed that it was taken possession legally, it was vehemently opposed by the RC owner. However, this court is not expected to go into that question in this proceedings. Admittedly, an application for issuance of fresh RC is pending before the first respondent RTO. It is also evident that the possession was taken some time in 2018, no purpose will be served nor the interest of either party protected by keeping the above issue pending. I feel that the RTO is liable to hear both sides, the financier as well as the original RC owner for the consideration of Ext.P2 application, filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5176/2021. After giving a reasonable opportunity to both sides to appear and contest and to adduce evidence if required, the RTA shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law, within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that if intimation of transfer of ownership is granted in favour of the W.P. (C) No. 5176/2021, RC shall be issued to the writ petitioner on a condition that, the financier shall remit all the tax arrears that are due till now. The claim of both the writ petitioners shall be considered accordingly. 5. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.