Sunil Kumar vs Joint Rto on 5 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29993 of 2010(Y)


1. SUNIL KUMAR, PUNNAKKARA HOUSE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOINT RTO, THALASSERY.
                       ...       Respondent

2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL THOMAS (MELEMALAYIL)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :05/10/2010

 O R D E R
                           C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
                        ---------------------------------------
                        W.P(C)No.29993 of 2010
                       ----------------------------------------
                         Dated 5th October, 2010

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a Mini Lorry bearing registration

No.KL-13-N-3448 which is hypothecated to Magma Fincorp Ltd.

Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted a request before the said

financier for clearance certificate. They refused to issue such a clearance

certificate and pursuant to which the petitioner has taken up the matter

before the Consumer Redressal Forum. It is now pending before the

Forum. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has submitted an application for

renewal of permit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents

are insisting for production of No Objection Certificate from the said

Magma Fincorp Ltd. and on account of the failure on the part of the

petitioner to produce such No Objection Certificate from the said financier

the respondents are not considering the application for renewal of permit

submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that in the

meanwhile the first respondent issued Ext.P5 temporary permit and it is

made valid for a maximum period of four months or till the disposal of the

case now pending before the Consumer Redressal Forum, whichever is

earlier. According to the petitioner, in the light of the provisions under

Section 51(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the competent authority is

bound to consider the request of the petitioner for renewal of permit

WP(C).No.29993/2010 2

without insisting for production of the No Objection Certificate

especially taking into account the fact that the issue between the

petitioner and the financier is admittedly pending.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Ext.P5 would

reveal the fact that the petitioner has actually submitted an application

for renewal of permit. Admittedly, non-production of No Objection

Certificate is the reason for non-renewal of the permit. When an

application is submitted for renewal of permit, the competent authority

is bound to pass orders thereon. In case of refusal on the part of the

financier to issue the No Objection Certificate the decision need not be

deferred whilst it has to be taken in the light of Section 51(9) of the

Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Therefore, the first respondent is bound to

consider the request of the petitioner for renewal of permit.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of

with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on

the application for renewal of permit which is admittedly pending

before it expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge

TKS