IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9910 of 2010(K)
1. M.J.ABRAHAM, S/O.JACOB,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :25/03/2010
O R D E R
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 9910 OF 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the
action of respondents 1 and 2 in not considering his application for
renewal of the permit of his stage carriage for the reason that a No
Objection Certificate has not been issued by the third respondent-
financier.
2. According to the petitioner, he purchased the stage
carriage bearing registration No: KL-12B.8523 with financial
assistance from the third respondent. The name of the third
respondent is endorsed in his R.C book, as can be seen from Ext.P1.
The permit of the vehicle expired on 16.1.2010 and therefore, the
petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for renewal of the same
before the second respondent. He complains that his application
has not been considered for the reason that he has not produced
an NOC from the third respondent who is the financier.
3. The petitioner submits that he has paid off the entire
amount that was availed by him as loan from the third respondent.
Therefore, he issued a notice requesting for the issue of an NOC by
the third respondent. However, the third respondent has replied by
WPC 9910/2010 2
Ext.P5 stating that the finance was arranged by Messrs. Shriram
Transport Finance Co. Ltd and therefore they have to be addressed
for the issue of an NOC. According to the petitioner, he has no
dealings with the said company. He had taken loan from the third
respondent company and therefore, the NOC has to be issued by
the third respondent.
4. It has been held by this Court that the authorities cannot
refuse to renew a permit for the sole reason that an NOC has not
been issued by the financier. In circumstances where the financier
refuses to issue an NOC, the authorities have to follow the
procedure that is laid down by Section 51(9) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (the ‘Act’ for short). A similar situation had arisen in the
case of Bindhu v. RTA, Kottayam {2009(3) KLT 525}. After having
considered the scope of Section 51 of the Act and the status of a
person who has supplied the refinance in respect of the vehicle this
Court has observed as follows:-
“12. May be by reason of any event subsequent
to the actual registration of the vehicle, there has been
a change in the contractual relationship between the
original registered owner and the financier. May be
the financier has availed of a re-financing facility from
another person. May be, as is alleged to have
WPC 9910/2010 3
happened in the instant case, the additional third
respondent has stepped into the shoes of the second
respondent on payment of the amounts due from the
petitioner to the financier. But these are aspects
which could be resolved only under the auspices of a
contract between the parties and in terms of the said
contract.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx
13. In the above circumstances, I am unable to
accept the submission of the additional third
respondent that it is entitled to be treated as having
stepped into the shoes of the second respondent and
therefore, entitled to assert the status of the second
respondent as a financier in relation to the vehicle in
question. May be the second respondent has no
objection to the third respondent asserting to such a
status. May be the second respondent would even
concede the right of subrogation in favour of the third
respondent. May be the petitioner herself had earlier
entered into a tri-partite agreement with respondents
2and 3. But this will not enable the third respondent
to claim the status of a financier in the context of S.51
of the Act. Right thereunder cannot be claimed by
anyone other than the person with whom, existence of
an agreement is endorsed in terms of S.51(1) of the
Act. Consequently, the status of the financier,
discernible in favour of the second respondent, cannot
WPC 9910/2010 4
be attributed to the additional third respondent. Of
course, it would be open to the third respondent,
nevertheless to move the competent Civil Court for
appropriate declaratory relief with the registering
authority on the party array.”
5. I am in respectful agreement with the above view. The
registering the authority has therefore to proceed in accordance
with the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. Therefore, the refusal
of the authorities to renew the permit of the petitioner is without
any justification.
6. In the result this writ petition is disposed of directing the
second respondent to proceed with the application for renewal of
permit submitted by the petitioner by following the procedure
stipulated by Section 51(9) of the Act after notice to the third
respondent also. Orders in this regard shall be passed as
expeditiously as possible, 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 9910/2010 5
K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.
—————————————————-
M.F.A.NO:
—————————————————–
JUDGMENT
Dated: