IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36693 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.S.JAYAKRISHNAN,THERAYANKODE HOUSE, EZHAKKAD,MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD PIN-678 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 36693 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the non- consideration of the application submitted by him for renewal of contract carriage permit in respect of contract carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-9 S 829. Ext.P2 would reveal that the petitioner has submitted such an application before the respondent. Evidently, the reason for the delay in consideration of the application is the failure on the part of the petitioner to produce No Objection Certificate in terms of the provisions under Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The contention of the petitioner is that he has already approached the financier for getting the No Objection Certificate through Ext.P3. Ext.P4 would reveal that such a request has been made by the petitioner with the financier. On account of the failure of the financier to respond to the requisition for issuance of No Objection Certificate, the respondent has to proceed with the consideration of such an application in terms of the deeming provision under 51(7) of the Act, it is contended. Section 51(7) W.P.(C) NO.36693/2010 2 of the Act admittedly contains a deeming provision. But, in order to facilitate the respondent to take a decision in terms of the provisions under Section 51(7), the petitioner has to satisfy the said authority that he has taken appropriate action in terms of the provisions under Section 51(7) of the Act. It will also be open to the respondent to issue notice to the financier to ascertain the verity of the contention of the petitioner regarding the financier's failure to respond to his request for issuance of No Objection Certificate after receipt of Ext.P3 letter. At any rate, there cannot be any justification for delaying a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of contract carriage permit in respect of the aforesaid vehicle any further. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of contract carriage permit in respect of the aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No.KL-9 S 829, in accordance with the provisions under Section 51 of the Act. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner as also to the financier of the said vehicle. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.36693/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.36693/2010 4