IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14032 of 2008(U)
1. HARIS.H, S/O. HANEEFA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
... Respondent
2. HEAD CLERK
3. STATE BANK OF INDIA
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC, HDFC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/08/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 14032 OF 2008 U
====================
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner submits that he is an operator of a contract carriage.
According to him, he submitted Ext.P8 application for renewal of the
permit and the office of the 1st respondent returned the application for
renewal, with Ext.P10 endorsement directing resubmission of the
application with NOC/termination papers of the financier. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the endorsement is factually erroneous and
that Ext.P9 declaration under Section 51(7) was produced along with the
application.
2. On instructions learned Government Pleader submits that the
application received was an invalid one and it was not accompanied either
with an NOC or a declaration and that it was in these circumstances the
application was returned.
3. I have no reason to disbelieve the version of the official
respondents. However, since, even according to the official respondents,
the application was returned for non submission of the NOC or a
declaration, it should be open to the petitioner to submit a fresh
WPC 14032/08
:2 :
application enclosing the required documents.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it
will be open to the petitioner to submit a fresh application for renewal of
his permit accompanied by either NOC or a declaration as required under
Section 51(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If a proper application as
above is received by the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent shall issue
notice to the 3rd respondent also and thereafter pass orders in the matter.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp