IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22666 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.C.PAVITRAN,S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, H.NO.6/776,PERUNKUNNUPPALA HOUSE,P.O.PARIYARAM, TALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KASARAGOD. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KsS K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 22666 OF 2010 G ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Alakkad-Anandasram as per a regular permit bearing registration No: KL-13/M 4446. The regular permit is valid till 5/5/2013. The petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No: KL- 13/M 4446 is subject to a hire purchase agreement with a private financier. The petitioner has purchased a later model vehicle bearing registration No: K-13/R 1719 and has submitted an application for replacement of the earlier vehicle with the later model one. The complaint of the petitioner is that his application for replacement has not been considered on the ground that he had not produced a no objection certificate from the financier. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that a no objection certificate is not required for the replacement of a vehicle. He relies on the decision of this Court in W.PC 10812/2007 wherein a similar issue was considered by this Court. I have heard the learned Senior Govt. Pleader Mr. K.C.Santhosh Kumar also. 3. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment there are no grounds to insist that a no objection WPC 22666/2010 2 certificate from the financier should be produced by the petitioner. There is also no provision of law that requires the production of such a certificate for the replacement of a vehicle. Petitioner's application is one under Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the stipulation in Ext.P5 that the petitioner should produce a no objection certificate from the financier is without any basis. 4. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for replacement of the vehicle in accordance with law without insisting on a no objection certificate from the financier and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and 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 22666/2010 3