IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12996 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BIJU.K.V., S/O.VARGHESE, KARANGAL HOUSE, PIRAMADAM.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE MR.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALUVA. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALADY. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. =========================== WP(C) NO.12996 OF 2009-T =========================== Dated 21st May 2009 Judgment The petitioner purchased an open tipper vehicle from a financier as evidenced by Ext.P1. It seems, the vehicle was originally owned by one Mr.M.P.Renjith, who later surrendered the same on being rendered unable to pay the instalments. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application before the Regional Transport Officer for a No-Objection Certificate from the said authority to enable him to get registration for the said vehicle from the registering authority at Muvattupuzha. The 2nd respondent on enquiry intimated that the 3rd respondent Station House Officer, Kalady had informed that the vehicle was involved in transportation of illicit sand and that it was seized and thereafter released as per the order passed by the District Collector on 25.04.2006. The petitioner moved this Court in WP(C)No.9406/09 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a No-Objection Certificate. This court by Ext.P5 judgment directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 application within a time frame. The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P6 rejected the application for No-objection certificate on the ground that the vehicle is involved in Crime No.388/2007 of Kalady Police Station and this has been challenged in this Writ Petition. WPC 12996/09 -2- 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. Perusal of Ext.P6 order would show that the 2nd respondent has not taken into account the fact that the vehicle was seized for alleged unauthorised transportation of river sand and it was later released subject to imposition of fine. According to the petitioner, the fine amount was remitted as directed. If that be so, the mere fact that a crime was registered earlier, need not stand in the way of a No-objection certificate being issued. The fact that a crime case has been registered, has been endorsed in the registration certificate at the time of transfer of the vehicle. In the result, Ext.P6 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, keeping in mind the directions issued in Ext.P5 and the observations contained in this Judgment within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. 21.05.2009 V.GIRI, JUDGE sta