IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 1565 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJASEKHARA, 42 YEARS S/O.LATE KRISHNA R/AT.DWARAKA NAGAR, KARANAKKAD KASARAGOD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. SECRETARY, RTA, KASARAGOD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 1565 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the refusal of the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1, an application made by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle. According to the petitioner the reason is that the 2nd respondent is insisting that he should produce a No Objection certificate from the financier. 2. Learned counsel rightly points out that, in similar circumstances, by Ext.P3 judgment in WP(c).No.113/09, this court has already taken the view that NOC of the financier is not necessary for considering an application for replacement. That view has been taken referring to Section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. In view of the above position, I see absolutely no justification for the refusal on the part of the 2nd WP(c).No.1565/09 /2/ respondent to consider Ext.P1 for the reason that the petitioner has not produced NOC from the financier. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 without insisting on the production of NOC from the financier, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.1565/09 /2/