IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36693 of 2010(J)
1. T.S.JAYAKRISHNAN,THERAYANKODE HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 36693 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the non-
consideration of the application submitted by him for renewal of contract
carriage permit in respect of contract carriage vehicle bearing registration
No.KL-9 S 829. Ext.P2 would reveal that the petitioner has submitted
such an application before the respondent. Evidently, the reason for the
delay in consideration of the application is the failure on the part of the
petitioner to produce No Objection Certificate in terms of the provisions
under Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’).
The contention of the petitioner is that he has already approached the
financier for getting the No Objection Certificate through Ext.P3. Ext.P4
would reveal that such a request has been made by the petitioner with the
financier. On account of the failure of the financier to respond to the
requisition for issuance of No Objection Certificate, the respondent has to
proceed with the consideration of such an application in terms of the
deeming provision under 51(7) of the Act, it is contended. Section 51(7)
W.P.(C) NO.36693/2010 2
of the Act admittedly contains a deeming provision. But, in order to
facilitate the respondent to take a decision in terms of the provisions under
Section 51(7), the petitioner has to satisfy the said authority that he has
taken appropriate action in terms of the provisions under Section 51(7) of
the Act. It will also be open to the respondent to issue notice to the
financier to ascertain the verity of the contention of the petitioner
regarding the financier’s failure to respond to his request for issuance of
No Objection Certificate after receipt of Ext.P3 letter. At any rate, there
cannot be any justification for delaying a decision on the application
submitted by the petitioner for renewal of contract carriage permit in
respect of the aforesaid vehicle any further. In the circumstances, this Writ
Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and
pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of
contract carriage permit in respect of the aforesaid vehicle bearing
registration No.KL-9 S 829, in accordance with the provisions under
Section 51 of the Act. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
with notice to the petitioner as also to the financier of the said vehicle.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.36693/2010 3
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
W.P.(C) NO.36693/2010 4