Loading...

Biju.K.V. vs The District Collector on 21 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
Biju.K.V. vs The District Collector on 21 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12996 of 2009(T)


1. BIJU.K.V., S/O.VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR TRANSPORT OFFICER,

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALADY.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :21/05/2009

 O R D E R

V.GIRI, J.

===========================
WP(C) NO.12996 OF 2009-T
===========================
Dated 21st May 2009

Judgment

The petitioner purchased an open tipper vehicle from a financier

as evidenced by Ext.P1. It seems, the vehicle was originally owned by

one Mr.M.P.Renjith, who later surrendered the same on being rendered

unable to pay the instalments. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2

application before the Regional Transport Officer for a No-Objection

Certificate from the said authority to enable him to get registration for

the said vehicle from the registering authority at Muvattupuzha. The 2nd

respondent on enquiry intimated that the 3rd respondent Station House

Officer, Kalady had informed that the vehicle was involved in

transportation of illicit sand and that it was seized and thereafter released

as per the order passed by the District Collector on 25.04.2006. The

petitioner moved this Court in WP(C)No.9406/09 seeking a direction to

the 2nd respondent to issue a No-Objection Certificate. This court by

Ext.P5 judgment directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2

application within a time frame. The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P6 rejected

the application for No-objection certificate on the ground that the vehicle

is involved in Crime No.388/2007 of Kalady Police Station and this has

been challenged in this Writ Petition.

WPC 12996/09 -2-

2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. Perusal of Ext.P6

order would show that the 2nd respondent has not taken into account the

fact that the vehicle was seized for alleged unauthorised transportation of

river sand and it was later released subject to imposition of fine.

According to the petitioner, the fine amount was remitted as directed. If

that be so, the mere fact that a crime was registered earlier, need not

stand in the way of a No-objection certificate being issued. The fact that

a crime case has been registered, has been endorsed in the registration

certificate at the time of transfer of the vehicle. In the result, Ext.P6 is

quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, keeping in

mind the directions issued in Ext.P5 and the observations contained in

this Judgment within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

21.05.2009                                          V.GIRI, JUDGE




sta

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information