IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15876 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ABDUL RAZACK P.P., PULIPARAKKAL HOUSE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.15876 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is the owner of a regular permit conducting services on the route Adivaram – Kozhikode. The regular permit is valid up to 20.6.2010. The present vehicle of the petitioner is KL-11/S4689, which is a 2003 model one. The petitioner purchased a 2009 model vehicle, which is registered as KL-57/B 7980. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 application for replacement of his old vehicle with the new one. However, the respondent has issued Ext.P5 reply by which, the petitioner has been directed to produce a No Objection Certificate from the financier for the purpose of considering the application for replacement of his vehicle. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a No Objection Certificate from the financier is not a pre-requisite for granting replacement of the vehicle as sought for by the petitioner. He also relies on the judgment dated 5.9.2008 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12680/2008. W.P.(C) No.15876/2010 2 3. The learned senior Government Pleader points out that since there was a variation in the seating capacities of the earlier vehicle as well as the new vehicle, that is offered for replacement, it is the Regional Transport Authority that has to consider the application submitted by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his application would be considered by the competent authority, who is authorised to consider the same. 4. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent or the competent authority, who is authorised to consider the application of the petitioner for replacement of vehicle, evidenced herein by Ext.P4, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without insisting on production of a No Objection Certificate from the financier for replacement of the vehicle. (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ps