IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 14840 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- M.R.RAMEES, S/O.RASHEED, AGED 34 YEARS, 19/2108 A, RIYAS VILLA, PALLURUTHY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686502. BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN SRI.A.S.FARIDIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MATTANCHERRY R.T. OFFICE, NEAR CHEMMEENS, MATTANCHERY,KOCHI-682005. 2. M/S.SREE RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 36/847, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682011. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. ABDUL SALAM R2 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 14840 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RC BOOK WITH REGARD TO THE GOODS VEHICLE KL-7AD 3666. EXT.P2 : COPY OF PERMIT NO. C2/3990/06/EMT DT. 16/5/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF LETTER DT. 30-4-2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 5-7-2011. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 43/1081/2011 DT. 5-7-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2 : COPY OF E-MAIL SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 4.5.2011 OBJECTING TO THE RENEWAL OF THE PERMIT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14840 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL 07 AD 3666. The said vehicle is hypothecated to the second respondent. The goods carriage permit issued to the petitioner's vehicle was valid till 15.5.2011. With a view to apply for renewal of the permit, the petitioner sent Ext.P3 letter dated 30.4.2011 to the second respondent requesting for a No Objection Certificate to be produced along with the application for renewal of the permit. After the original of Ext.P3 was served on the second respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 declaration before the first respondent stating that though he had requested for a No Objection Certificate on 30.4.2011, the financier had received that request and the acknowledgment card has been received back, no communication has been received from the financier. Along with Ext.P4 declaration, a copy of Ext.P3 letter and copy of the postal acknowledgment card were also enclosed. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 1.6.2011 seeking a direction to the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 application for renewal of the permit. Later after the writ petition was filed, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application dated 5.7.2011 W.P.(C) No.14840 of 2011 2 before the first respondent for renewal of the permit. By Ext.P6 order dated 5.7.2011, the said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not produced a No Objection Certificate issued by the financier. The writ petition was thereupon amended challenging Ext.P6 and seeking a direction to the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 application for renewal of the permit. The petitioner has positively stated that the financier has within 7 days from the date of receipt of the request for a No Objection Certificate failed to issue the No Objection Certificate and to inform him of the reason why such a No Objection Certificate cannot be issued and therefore the No Objection Certificate should be deemed to have been issued. It is contended that as the petitioner had produced copies of Ext.P3 letter and the postal acknowledgment card before the first respondent, the first respondent ought not have rejected Ext.P5. 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that upon receipt of Ext.P3 letter by post on 4.5.2011, an e-mail was sent to the first respondent objecting to the renewal of the permit and a copy of the e-mail which is produced as Ext.R2 was sent to the petitioner by post. The second respondent has also stated that large amounts are due from the petitioner and therefore the second respondent was not willing to issue the No W.P.(C) No.14840 of 2011 3 Objection Certificate. 3. I heard Sri.S.K.Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.S.Abdul Salam, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri.Philip.T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The fact that the petitioner had sent Ext.P3 letter dated 30.4.2011 requesting the second respondent to issue a No Objection Certificate and the fact that it was received by the respondent on 4.5.2011 is not in dispute. The second respondent has in Ext.R2 e-mail sent to the first respondent admitted that fact. By Ext.R2, the second respondent informed the first respondent that it has objection to the renewal of the permit and therefore the permit should not be renewed without the written consent of the second respondent. Though the second respondent has stated that copy of Ext.P2 e-mail was sent to the petitioner by post on 4.5.2011, no cogent material is produced to substantiate that claim. Apart from the averment in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that a copy of Ext.R2 e-mail was sent to the petitioner by post, there is nothing on record to show that a copy of Ext.R2 e-mail sent by the second respondent to the first respondent was in fact sent to the petitioner by post. The second respondent has no case that besides the e-mail sent to the first respondent, it had W.P.(C) No.14840 of 2011 4 issued any other communication to the first respondent. Sub-section (7) of section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that within 7 days of the receipt of an application under sub-section(6), the financier may issue or refuse, for reasons which shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, to issue, the certificate applied for, and where the financier fails to issue the certificate and also fails to communicate the reasons for refusal to issue the certificate to the applicant within the said period of seven days, the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the financier. Going by the terms of sub-section (7) of section 51 of the Act, the second respondent had a duty to inform the petitioner of the reason why the No Objection Certificate applied for cannot be issued to him. If such a reply is not issued, it is stipulated that on the expiry of the period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the application for the No Objection Certificate, the certificate applied for should be deemed to have been issued by the financier. It is evident from the materials on record that the financier did not inform the petitioner in writing within 7 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P3 letter the reason why the No Objection Certificate applied for by him cannot be issued. The petitioner is, therefore, in my opinion, entitled to the benefit of sub-section (7) of section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I W.P.(C) No.14840 of 2011 5 am therefore satisfied that the stand taken by the first respondent in Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P6 and direct the first respondent to pass revised orders on Ext.P5 application for renewal of Ext.P2 permit on the basis that the financier has not within 7 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P3 letter informed the petitioner in writing of the reason why the No Objection Certificate applied for by the petitioner cannot be issued and thereby the petitioner became entitled for the benefit of the fiction in sub-section (7) of section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Revised orders on Ext.P5 shall be passed and the permit renewed, if there is no other objection to such renewal other than the failure to produce a No Objection Certificate, expeditiously and in any event within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is clarified that such renewal will not absolve the petitioner of his liability to repay the loan availed by him from the second respondent. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.