E.V.Shajan vs The Secretary on 1 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4110 of 2010(K)


1. E.V.SHAJAN,EDATHARA HOUSE,THANIPADAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.I.DINESH MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :01/03/2010

 O R D E R
                          K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                         W.P(C) NO: 4110 OF 2010
                 -----------------------------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 1stMarch, 2010.

                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing

registration No: KL-8A2100. The petitioner is conducting services

on the route Thrissur-Chavakkad on the basis of a regular permit

which is valid till 8.4.2010. The petitioner has submitted an

application for replacement of the vehicle since it has become old.

Initially the authority directed the petitioner to produce a no

objection certificate from the financier. However, when the

petitioner produced a judgment of this Court in support of his

contention that such a requirement was unnecessary, the

respondent has directed the petitioner to produce the R C

particulars of the old vehicle. According to the petitioner, the

requirement of production of R C particulars of his old vehicle is

unnecessary and uncalled for.

2. The Govt. Pleader on instructions submits that the

direction to produce the RC particulars of the old vehicle is

necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether the new vehicle

that is offered is of the same category and same seating capacity as

the old one. For other reasons also the Govt. Pleader submits that

WPC 4110/2010 2

the registration particulars of the old vehicle could be insisted

upon.

2. The counsel for the petitioner meets the contentions of the

learned Govt. Pleader by pointing out that the seating capacity of

the earlier vehicle is mentioned in the permit itself, a photo copy of

which is produced as Ext.P3. Therefore, according to him the

direction to produce the particulars of the old vehicle is without any

justification.

3. According to the petitioner the respondent has sought for

the registration particulars of the old vehicle. It is not clear for

what reason the particulars have been called for. Therefore, I am

not in a position to say whether the direction is unnecessary or not.

However, I feel that the matter can be directed to be considered by

the respondent and orders passed expeditiously.

4. In the above circumstances the respondent is directed to

consider the application for replacement of the vehicle submitted

by the petitioner and also the contention that registration

particulars of the old vehicle are not necessary for passing orders of

replacement in the manner provided by the Motor Vehicles Act

1988, and to pass final orders on his application in accordance with

WPC 4110/2010 3

law, 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
jj

WPC 4110/2010    4

                      K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

—————————————————-

M.F.A.NO:

—————————————————–

JUDGMENT

Dated: