IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3102 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI,MADHUKKAL HOUSE, TRIPRANGODE,THIRUNAVAYA,TIRUR REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FIROZ ALAVY,S/O.AHAMMED HAJI,THAZHATHUVEETTIL HOUSE,KUTTALLOOR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE SECRETARY,THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3102 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an existing operator of stage carriage No.KL-10/R 954. The petitioner has been granted a renewal of permit. After the permit was granted, he applied for replacement of the vehicle and also produced the particulars of the new vehicle. But, the respondent rejected the request for the reason that the petitioner had not produced a no objection certificate from the financier. According to the petitioner, the rejection of his application for replacement for not having produced the no objection certificate of the financier is unsustainable. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the vehicle offered for replacement also is of the same class and since there is no change in class under Section 51(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the petitioner is entitled to replace the vehicle. The petitioner has also relied on Ext.P4 judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.12680/2008 (H). 4. In view of the dictum in Ext.P4 judgment, I feel that wpc 3102/2010 2 the petitioner's request for replacement of the vehicle in the present case can also be granted. The request for replacement of the vehicle cannot be rejected on the ground that a No Objection Certificate was not obtained from the financier. In fact, in Ext.P4 judgment it has been held that a no objection certificate from the financier is not required for allowing an application for replacement of a vehicle. The decision that is relied on in Ext.P3 order is not applicable in view of the later decision, evidenced by Ext.P4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the application for replacement of the vehicle submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law 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 css/