Sri.Muhammed Shafi vs The Secretary on 3 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3102 of 2010(K)


1. SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI,MADHUKKAL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :03/02/2010

 O R D E R
                  K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
                -------------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) No.3102 of 2010
                -------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an existing operator of stage carriage

No.KL-10/R 954. The petitioner has been granted a renewal

of permit. After the permit was granted, he applied for

replacement of the vehicle and also produced the particulars

of the new vehicle. But, the respondent rejected the request

for the reason that the petitioner had not produced a no

objection certificate from the financier. According to the

petitioner, the rejection of his application for replacement for

not having produced the no objection certificate of the

financier is unsustainable.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle

offered for replacement also is of the same class and since

there is no change in class under Section 51(6) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, the petitioner is entitled to replace the

vehicle. The petitioner has also relied on Ext.P4 judgment of

this Court in WP(C)No.12680/2008 (H).

4. In view of the dictum in Ext.P4 judgment, I feel that

wpc 3102/2010 2

the petitioner’s request for replacement of the vehicle in the

present case can also be granted. The request for

replacement of the vehicle cannot be rejected on the ground

that a No Objection Certificate was not obtained from the

financier. In fact, in Ext.P4 judgment it has been held that a

no objection certificate from the financier is not required for

allowing an application for replacement of a vehicle. The

decision that is relied on in Ext.P3 order is not applicable in

view of the later decision, evidenced by Ext.P4.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P3

order is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the

application for replacement of the vehicle submitted by the

petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate

orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE

css/