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
