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. 17234 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- ABY ABRAHAM, S/O.K.P.ABRAHAM, AGED 32 YEARS, KURUVICHIRANGARA HOUSE, KAITHAKKAD, PATTIMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVA SANKAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD., 1ST FLOOR, EMGEE SQUARE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. 2. JAYAKUMAR C., S/O.CHELLAPPAN M., EDAMANASSERY HOUSE, KURICHI VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA R3 BY GOVT.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: Mn C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 17234 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL 7 BH 1981. It was purchased after availing a loan from the first respondent Bank. According to the petitioner he had closed the loan account pertaining to the aforesaid vehicle and thereafter he made a request for issuing a letter terminating the hypothecation. However, despite the receipt of the said request, the first respondent is not issuing the termination letter, it is contended. Despite the provisions under section 51(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the 3rd respondent is not taking any action to consider Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner for endorsing the cancellation of the hypothecation. Despite the provisions under section 51(7)of the Act the 3rd respondent is insisting for production of No Objection Certificate from the financier, it is contended. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to direct the second respondent to cancel the loan endorsement in Ext.P1 WPC.17234/2010 : 2 : registration certificate pertaining to the aforesaid vehicle. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent seeks time to file a counter affidavit in this writ petition. However, in view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I am of the view that no purpose would be served by granting time for filing counter affidavit as I do not propose to consider the contentions on merit at this stage. Admittedly, in view of the provisions under section 51(7) of the Act, being statutory authority clothed with the power the 3rd respondent is bound to consider Ext.P7 application in accordance with the provisions at the first instance. While considering the request made by the petitioner in and vide Ext.P7 the first respondent would get an opportunity to raise all his contentions before the second respondent. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to WPC.17234/2010 : 3 : consider Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner for cancellation of endorsement in Ext.P1 registration certificate with notice to the petitioner, the first respondent and also other persons concerned. 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. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma The words 'second respondent' occurring in the last sentence of paragraph 2 and in line 3 of last paragraph of the judgment dated 21.12.2010 in W.P.(C) No.17234/2010 are corrected and substituted as 'third respondent', vide order in W.P(C) 17234/2010 dated 20.10.2011. Sd/- Registrar(Judicial)